Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** MELINDA BARBER v. MICHAEL MULROONEY (AC 20263)
Schaller, Zarella and Pellegrino, Js. Submitted on briefs September 18--officially released December 12, 2000 Counsel

Peter Harvey filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff). Michael Mulrooney, pro se, the appellee (defendant), filed a brief.
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Melinda Barber, appeals from the judgment awarding her damages from the defendant, Michael Mulrooney, after a trial to the court in this sexual harassment action. The sole issue on appeal is whether the court abused its discretion in refusing to award punitive damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress after finding a pattern of sexual harassment by the defendant. The following facts are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The defendant employed the plaintiff and at one time had a sexual relationship with her. Although the plaintiff ended the relationship, the defendant con-

tinued to approach her with sexual overtures and unsolicited contact. That behavior eventually caused the plaintiff to leave her employment without having secured other employment. The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant, alleging violations of General Statutes

Download Barber v. Mulrooney.pdf

Connecticut Law