Lots of trepidation in the Connecticut Post newsroom. On Friday the paper cut loose Business Editor Pam Dawkins, reporter Aaron Leo and tech editor Todd Hollis among 44 layoffs impacting Hearst-owned papers in Bridgeport, Greenwich, Stamford and Danbury.
Greenwich, Stamford and Danbury pubs took the biggest hit in the latest round of layoffs. The larger issue in the Bridgeport newsroom is what will come down the road as a Hearst letter to employees announced another round of 80 layoffs on the horizon. It sucks to report and write with the layoff guillotine poised. Hearst owns a juicy triangle of papers in the wealthiest county in the country with a bottom line to prioritize in a languishing print media industry.
With the state of the economy being the way it is, and the rapid decline in print media readership, expect more layoffs on the horizon.
Hearts plans to eliminate another 80 positions within the next three months.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
