Smith v. Avante Management Group, Inc., No. Cv92 0513309 (Sep. 26, 1994)
Opinion of the Court
Section
While there was evidence Plaintiff made inquiries from local and federal agencies as to applicable provisions governing payment for "on call" duties, because he thought that payment might be required for all hours he was actually "on call", he did not report, orally or in writing, any violation or suspected violation to any public agency prior to his actual dismissal. His first "report" to any public agency was well after the date of his dismissal. Further, there was sufficient competent evidence that he was dismissed for reasons of substance related to his job performance and his attitude toward defendant's officers, rather than for any differences or opinions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant relating to "on call" duties.
Judgment may enter for the Defendant. CT Page 9699
Wagner, J.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.