Former Employee Sues Sunrun Over False Accusation Costs

Former Employee Sues Sunrun, Citing False Accusation Costs

George Edward Steins, a former employee of Sunrun Installation Services, has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the company. Steins alleges that Sunrun’s inaction led to his arrest and the filing of criminal charges against him. He claims that the charges stemmed from Sunrun’s failure to inform the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that his employment ended in 2017, and that he no longer held the company’s home improvement contractor’s license.

Alleged Failure to Update Information 🌳

The lawsuit, filed on September 4th, details Steins’ claims. He asserts that Sunrun’s failure to update the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection (CDCP) resulted in him being wrongly accused of employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The charges against Steins, which stemmed from this alleged misinformation, were eventually dismissed in May 2024.

Steins argues that had Sunrun properly notified the CDCP of the termination of his employment and the forfeiture of his contractor’s license, he would not have been subject to such charges. He contends that this omission constitutes a violation of his civil rights.

Legal Representation and Court Proceedings

Steins is represented in this case by attorney Robert M. Berke. Attorneys David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn, and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services. The lawsuit is currently pending before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer in the Connecticut District Court, with the case docket number 3:24-cv-01423.

Considering the potential for harm to both ‍former ⁤employees and the ⁣company, what practical and ethical guidelines ‍should‍ be established‍ to determine the ⁤scope of a company’s responsibility in maintaining and updating information about former employees?

This lawsuit raises a fascinating question – to what extent are companies responsible for updating information about former employees, ‍especially when that information could potentially lead to legal trouble for those individuals? Where⁢ should the line be drawn?