NEW BRITAIN, Conn. — A Connecticut Superior Court judge has allowed former Sound Federal Credit Union President and CEO Edward Fox to add a management entity as a defendant in his lawsuit over his 2024 termination, concluding the amendment was a more appropriate remedy than dismissing portions of two counterclaims filed against him, according to the court’s latest ruling.
The ruling permits Fox to expand his complaint while allowing the litigation to move forward on its merits, rather than striking parts of the counterclaims. The court found that adding the entity would ensure all parties whose conduct is central to the dispute are before the court, promote judicial efficiency and avoid the need for parallel litigation over the same underlying facts. The judge determined the amendment would not unduly prejudice the existing parties because the claims arise from the same series of events already at issue in the case.
Suit Filed After Termination
Fox filed suit after being terminated as president and CEO of Sound Federal Credit Union on April 30, 2024. The credit union said it fired him for cause, citing allegations that he had not been truthful with the board regarding the sale of a credit union-owned property at 61 Jessup Road and that he contributed to a hostile work environment.
Fox has denied those allegations, maintaining his termination was pretextual and breached his employment agreement. His lawsuit seeks damages on claims including breach of contract, violation of Connecticut’s wage laws, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation and negligence. He also alleges that accounting firm Whittlesey PC and former Sound executives Faith Fuller-Hayden and Rosa Campo played roles in the events leading to his dismissal.
The litigation has already generated several significant court rulings.
Case is Remanded
In January 2025, U.S. District Judge Kari Dooley remanded the case to Connecticut Superior Court after rejecting Sound Federal Credit Union’s argument that the dispute belonged in federal court because Fox’s employment package included an ERISA-governed executive benefit plan. Dooley ruled that Fox’s claims primarily concern alleged breaches of his employment contract and related state-law claims, with benefits under the Split Dollar Agreement serving only as a measure of potential damages rather than the basis for liability. As a result, the federal court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and returned the case to state court.
The state court also previously declined to dismiss Fox’s negligence claim against Whittlesey PC, finding he had sufficiently alleged that the accounting firm owed him a duty despite the absence of a direct client relationship. The court held that whether Whittlesey ultimately breached that duty is an issue to be resolved later in the litigation.
Separately, Fox filed a federal lawsuit in September 2025 seeking benefits under the executive Split Dollar Agreement, an ERISA action that remains pending in U.S. District Court.
