Sabatini and Associates, LLC Attorneys at Law :: Newington :: Hartford :: Connecticut » Uncategorized

$148,500 JUDGMENT

James Sabatini — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:09:01 +0000

The law firm of Sabatini and Asociates today won a $148,500 judgment plus costs in a case against a new home building contractor. The case was initially tried in 2009, but the trial judge did not award all the damages claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed and the Connecticut Supreme Court found error and remanded the case back for a new trial on damages only for breach of contract and breach of the New Home Warranty Act. After hearing the trial court agreed with the plaintiffs and entered the correct judgment.

Zoning Regulation Amendment

James Sabatini — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:37:46 +0000

Sabatini and Associates, LLC represented a religious sect which desired to have its clergy reside on the premises where the temple was located. A review of the local zoning ordinances in Newington, CT, revealed that the regulations did not contain any reference to housing for religious clerics. A survey of various religious institutions in Newington revealed that despite the lack of regulations permitting housing for religious clerics, many were in existience. Sabatini and Asociates, LLC attorney Vincent F. Sabatini drafted an amendment to the zoing regulations which would allow places of worship to have clerics reside on the same premises as the place of worship. The application for an amendment was filed and after public hearing the Plan and Zoning Commission unamiounisly approved the same. The regulation is now in effect.

Corrected Medical Record Leads To Credit Life Insurance Payment & Legal Settlement

James Sabatini — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:07:07 +0000

Vincent Sabatini is pleased to announce that he recently obtained a settlement for a client whose husband had past away. Prior to his death, our client and her husband refinanced their home with Wells Fargo Bank. The home equity line was in the amount of $137,000.00. They purchased credit life insurance with Centerioum Life an affilate of Wells Fargo. Part of the application process required each of them to fill out a medical form indicting whether or not they had treatment for cancer or heart disease or conditions related to each. Each said no. Shortly after the loan went into effect, the husband died. The wife made a claim against the life insurance company to pay the off the loan balance of approximately $134,000.00. The company refused relying on a “stray” medical report from a note by a resident from St. Francis Hospital that the husband ”had a history of cornary disease”. The widow denied this. Attorney Vincent Sabatini was hired. The case was investigated the matter. Certain recrods were unable to be obtained without court intervention. So, a Bill of Discovery was filed against Wells Fargo and Centerion. A Bill of Discovery is a procedural tool available in Connecticut satet court. The tool allows a person to obtain a court order requiring another individual or company to disclose certain evidence in order for the person to determine if he or she has a legally viable claim. The bill of discovery was granted and the recrods were obtained. The firm then intervied the decedent’s primary care physicain. This physicain was shown the ” medical note” in question. The physican stated that the note had to be in error as his records indicated the husband did not have the conditions indicated in the report. Attorney Sabatini tracked down the surgeon at St. Francis. Attorney Sabatini got the surgeon to reveiw the records. Upon review, the surgeon concluded that the “note” was in error. The surgeon said that the resident made a mistake. The surgeon agreed to
write a report indicating the error and correcting the note. Upon receipt of the corrected medical recrod, the law firm filed suit in Hartford against Wells Fargo and Centerion. General Counsel from Wells contacted our firm and indicated that the defendants were interesting in settling. After two months of settlement talks, the case was settled for exactly want the client wanted and deserved. Wells Fargo paid off the note in full; reimbursed to the wife overpayments made since her husband died and paid all attorneys’ fees and court costs.

Can A Former Employer Give A Bad Reference?

James Sabatini — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:26:36 +0000

Can a former employer give a bad reference for a terminated employee under Connecticut law? The short answer is yes. Contrary to popular belief, there is no Connecticut law that prohibits a former employer from giving a bad reference to a terminated employee so long as the reference is made in good faith. In other words, the former employer cannot falsely accuse the ex-employee or fabricate information to damage the individual’s professional reputation. If this occurs, the former employee can bring a defamation claim against the former employer. However, if the the employer simply expresses a good faith opinion that the former employee was a poor worker, the employer is legally allowed to do so.

Now, practically speaking, most former employers refrain from giving any reference at all, let alone a negative one. Why? because if a negative reference is given, the former employee may use it as evidence of retaliation or in support of a wrongful termination claim based upon unlawful discrimination on the account of race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, religious background, pregnancy, and/or national origin.

Court Backs Workers Who Report Discrimination

James Sabatini — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:50:34 +0000

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the federal civil rights laws that protect employees from unlawful discrimination also protect co-workers who face retaliation for standing up for a co-worker who has been subjected to discrimination. In the specific case, a Cracker Barrel manager claimed that he was fired in retaliation for complaining that a fellow employee was terminated because she was black. The Court found that he had a viable legal claim under the federal anti-discrimination laws. This is a significant decision for it provides legal protection for workers who see, report and complain of discrimination occuring to co-workers in the workplace. If you have been subjected to illegal employment discriminatiion, retaliation or termination, please contact one of our employment lawyers.

EEOC Reports 9% Increase In Disrimination Complaints In 2007

James Sabatini — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:33:08 +0000

The number of Discrimination Charges filed with the EEOC increased to 82,792 in 2007, up from 75,768 the previous year. Race, Gender and Retaliation charges were the most frequently reported charges. While announcing the numbers, EEOC Commission Chair Naomi C. Earp stated that Corporate America needs to do a better job of proactively preventing discrimination and addressing complaints promptly and effectively. To ensure that equality of opportunity becomes a reality in the 21st century workplace, employers need to place a premium on fostering inclusive and discrimination-free work environments for all individuals.

Connecticut Probate Litigation Lawyers

James Sabatini — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:36:46 +0000

The Connecticut trial lawyers at Sabatini and Associates, LLC routinely represent clients involved in probate litigation.� The most common dispute is a will contest. When one or more provisions of the will are called into question, the disagreement may lead to litigation. The lawyers at Sabatini and Associates, LLC have experience in drafting, interpreting, and administering wills, as well as handling the lawsuits that arise surrounding these documents. We have successfully represented clients contesting wills and have successfully defended estates in will contests

Probate litigation can also arise in cases of fiduciary negligence by a personal representative, guardian, or trustee. When a person in one of these positions takes actions for their own interests instead of the person they are representing, they have committed a breach of fiduciary duty. We represent clients in cases asserting fiduciary negligence.� If you have a probate matter, contact one of our�Connecticut probate litigation lawyers.

Injured By A Drunk Driver

James Sabatini — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:20:48 +0000

If you have been injured by a drunk driver, it is vital that you contact one of our Hartford personal injury lawyers as soon as possible.� Why? – because not only is the drunk driver liable for your injuries and losses, but the establishment that served the alcohol to the drunk driver.� You have 120 days to put the dram shop on written notice of your intention of filing a claim against it.� If written notice is not given within the 120 days, you will be prohibited from bringing a dram shop claim against the establishment.

Courts No Longer Deciding If Comment Was Stray

James Sabatini — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:54:47 +0000

Connecticut courts are now refusing to label a discriminatory statement or comment as stray or not.� Instead, and correctly so,�Connecticut courts are�applying a four factor test in�weighing�the probative�value of the comments.� The four factors are:

who made the remark, i.e., a decisionmaker, a supervisor, or a low-level co-worker;
when the remark was made in relation to the employment decision at issue;
the content of the remark, i.e., whether a reasonable juror could view the remark as discriminatory; and
the context in which the remark was made, i.e., whether it was related to the decisionmaking process.

In applying the test, the Court need not determine whether the remarks by�employer’s agents�are stray. Instead, the Court�will decide whether the remarks are sufficiently probative of unlawful�discrimination such that the jury could reasonably find that the Plaintiff was terminated because of�unlawful discrimination.�

Eliminating Job Position While Out On FMLA

James Sabatini — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:07:09 +0000

What reinstatement rights does an employee have where he would have been discharged or laid off during the leave, or where his job is changed during the leave?

An employee on an FMLA leave has no greater right to reinstatement than if the employee had continued to work instead of taking leave. If the employee would have been terminated or laid off for reasons unrelated to the leave, then the employee is not entitled to reinstatement. (However, the employee must still be given transfer rights if he would have had such rights absent the leave).

Indeed, an employer may effect the discharge or lay off during the FMLA leave when it otherwise would have occurred and terminate the continuation of the employee’s health benefits at that time. Additionally, if the employee’s job was reorganized or otherwise changed during the leave, the employee is only entitled to the reorganized or changed job he would have had if he had not taken a leave of absence.

The employer has the burden of proving, however, that the discharge, layoff, or job restructuring is not related to the FMLA leave. Thus, employers should be very careful not to use these limits on an employee’s reinstatement rights as an excuse to take advantage of the FMLA and affect the employee’s job status.