Dighello v. Thurston Foods, Inc.
307 F.Supp.3d 5 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's common law wrongful discharge claim is not precluded by the existence of a statutory remedy if the two claims are based on distinct public policies. For an illness to constitute a 'serious health condition' under the FMLA, it generally must involve a period of incapacity of more than three consecutive calendar days.
Facts:
- Judith Dighello worked for Thurston Foods, Inc. as a router and dispatcher, coordinating routes for delivery trucks.
- Her workload required her to work 12.5-hour shifts without breaks for lunch or rest.
- In early April 2015, Dighello was diagnosed with walking pneumonia and a respiratory infection; her physician instructed her to remain out of work for two days, and she provided Thurston with a doctor's note.
- Upon her return, Dighello requested a temporarily lightened workload, but management insisted she continue working full shifts without breaks.
- Around this time, a manager, Bob Thurston, told Dighello, 'Women should not be hired for this position' because they 'are too weak for this job.'
- Shortly thereafter, Dighello suffered a bronchial asthma attack while at the office and sought emergency treatment at a medical center.
- After returning from the emergency room, management again instructed Dighello that she was required to work the full 12.5-hour shifts without breaks.
- On May 7, 2015, after Dighello compiled fuel logs for an EPA inspection, Bob Thurston screamed at her in front of other employees, calling her incompetent.
- Following the verbal tirade, Dighello took a break to calm down, was told not to return until speaking with HR, and was subsequently informed via text message that she had been terminated.
Procedural Posture:
- Judith Dighello filed a lawsuit against Thurston Foods, Inc. in the Connecticut Superior Court.
- Thurston removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, citing federal question jurisdiction over the FMLA claims.
- Thurston filed a motion to dismiss three counts of the complaint—FMLA Retaliation (Fifth Count), FMLA Interference (Sixth Count), and Common Law Wrongful Discharge (Eighth Count)—for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a statutory remedy for wrongful discharge based on the violation of an employee's free speech rights preclude a common-law wrongful discharge claim when the common-law claim is based on the distinct public policy of promoting public safety?
Opinions:
Majority - Haight, Senior District Judge
No, a statutory remedy does not preclude a common-law wrongful discharge claim if the claims are based on distinct public policies. The court found that Plaintiff’s Eighth Count for common law wrongful discharge was based on the public policy of safe transportation and public safety embodied in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act (FMCSA). In contrast, her Ninth Count under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q was based on the distinct public policy of preserving constitutional rights to free speech. Because the two claims implicate different public policies, the statutory claim does not preclude the common law claim. Additionally, the court analyzed the FMLA claims, holding that Dighello’s two-day absence for walking pneumonia did not constitute a 'serious health condition' because it did not meet the regulatory requirement of incapacity for more than three consecutive days. However, her bronchial asthma attack in the office, which required emergency medical treatment, was a 'serious health condition' that put the employer on notice, allowing her FMLA retaliation and interference claims related to the asthma to proceed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies two important areas of employment law. First, it reaffirms the 'distinct public policy' exception to the preclusion doctrine in Connecticut, allowing plaintiffs to pursue both statutory and common law wrongful discharge claims if they arise from different underlying public interests. This provides a clear path for employees to plead in the alternative without one claim invalidating the other. Second, the ruling provides a practical application of the FMLA's definition of a 'serious health condition,' drawing a sharp line between minor, short-term illnesses (like walking pneumonia for two days) and qualifying chronic or emergency conditions (like a severe asthma attack), thereby guiding both employers and employees on when FMLA protections are triggered.
Unlock the full brief for Dighello v. Thurston Foods, Inc.