The state Appellate Court has given organized labor another layer of protection in a decision that says members of government employee unions have absolute immunity from claims like defamation for assertions they make when pressing grievances against employers.

The decision is based in part on the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, a law written to block lawsuits intended to intimidate people who exercise free speech rights. It is a win for Vincent DeGray, a civilian employee of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, who filed a grievance through his union claiming he was wrongly passed over for promotion.

In his grievance, DeGray claimed that Michael and Mary Robinson, a husband and wife who were also civilian academy employees, were biased against his union activism and had a “quid pro quo arrangement” with the job candidate who won the promotion. The Robinsons sued DeGray, arguing that he made false statements against them at the grievance hearing and in a related legal proceeding.

In its decision, the Appellate Court concluded that DeGray had “absolute immunity” for allegations made during the grievance process and that the key elements of the suit against him should be dismissed under Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP law. The 2018 law was intended to block lawsuits filed with the purpose of restraining First Amendment rights, like speech, by scaring off those being sued with the prospect of expensive litigation. SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuits against public participation.

What’s more, under the law, the Robinsons could be liable for the substantial legal expenses DeGray incurred defending himself from their suit. Over four years the suit was filed in Superior Court, it went to the state Supreme Court on a legal question, was sent back to the Superior Court and appealed to the Appellate Court.

The Robinsons’ attorney declined to discuss the case and it was unclear whether it would be appealed again.

DeGray’s lawyer, Jon Schoenhorn, called the appellate decision “a strong endorsement of collective bargaining.”

“It stands for the proposition that unions, especially public employee unions, have an absolute right to file grievances and pursue grievances,” he said. “And management personnel cannot intimidate unions by suing union members just because they participated in the union grievance process.

“It’s also a warning that, if you are suing someone for exercising their Constitutional rights, you are putting yourself in the position where you are going to end up paying a lot of legal fees for the person you are suing.”

The legislature enacted the anti-SLAPP law during what was a national movement to block spurious suits by well-heeled groups such as developers trying to quiet opposition to construction projects and wealthy interests seeking to dial back aggressive newspaper coverage.

Schoenhorn said the appellate decision is the first time the law has been upheld as a protection of the union grievance procedure.

The decision says that, under anti-SLAPP law, the suit against DeGray should be dismissed because government union members grieving their bosses have total, First Amendment immunity from being sued for their assertions when speaking in a government preceding on a matter of public concern.

It is possible that the protection could be extended to private unions in Connecticut because of the state Constitution’s recognition of private unions.

The state AFL-CIO filed a brief with the Appellate Court supporting DeGray’s contention that the Superior Court’s improperly denied his motion to dismiss the Robinson’s suit under anti-SLAPP law. The union argued, according to the Appellate decision, “that protecting public employees against retaliatory lawsuits for exercising their right to engage in mandatory union grievance procedure is precisely the type of ill that (anti-SLAPP law) was designed to prevent.”

The union lawyer could not be reached.