Holly B. Fitzsimmons

She lacks a sense of fairness. She did not conference the case once during the trial. Every ruling was against the military reservist, giving him no chance of winning. She had no idea of how to determine credibility. She did not marshal the evidence. This judge lacks a sense of humanity. She may be effective when settling cases, but she had no conferences and made no attempt to do so. She believed that there was no merit to the case before it began. Did she know the plaintiff or his law firm? If so, there was a severe conflict of interest. Under a pretense of possessing knowledge, she disallows evidence unfairly and permits wrong inferences. In the case of Hart vs. Epstein, she exhibited a preference for Epstein, as if she knew him personally. She showed a lack of knowledge of the USERRA law. Her past indicated that she had a conflict of interest and should have excused herself. Her only answer to criticism is to send U.S. Marshals. Her rulings to exclude evidence favorable to the reservist invited back from Iraq and then fired without cause within three days is a tragedy for our country, which has been put under the rug.

Judge Fitzsimmons has repeatedly settled complex employment cases for me in a very even-handed and kind way. At one point, she sat for over 40 minutes and allowed a distraught plaintiff to describe in horrible detail what had happened. She was calm, supportive, and effective in bringing the parties together. I've had decisions from her go against me, but they have been well-reasoned and fair.

Re: Hart vs. Epstein. 1) She should have recused herself. 2) Bifurcation was an abuse of judicial discretion. 3) She allowed improper inferences. 4) She refused to allow the jury to know that the U.S. Department of Labor had found in favor of the active reservist called to active duty. 5) She refused to charge the jury that the decision by the Department of Justice was not on the merits, which is the law. 6) She refused to charge the jury to find on the cause of action for retaliation, although she expressed surprise that there had been no hearing on the fallacious charge of the reservist violating restrictive covenant. 7) She determined that a disinterested witness should be characterized the same as a party witness.

She did not recuse herself based on her past experience in wrking as a US Attorney. she showed marked partiallity and lack of intellect and ability to differentiate. She does not deserve to be a Federal Judge.She displayed bias in her rulings and lack of the ability to distinguish and judge credibility. She did not recuse herself when her background favored employers and she formerly worked for the US Attorney's office whose reputation was an issue.

She lacks the ability to distinguish cases. She did not disclose predilections before the trial of a case.She lacks common sense or life experiences. She treated military reservist as a second class citizen.

Has the most real trial experience of any judge in the Connecticut district. Friendly, unassuming, very smart. Not garrulous or overly intrusive during trials; let's the lawyers try their cases. A huge asset to the federal bench.

Excellent. Thoughtful, informal but no-nonsense, smart as a whip.

Excellent Settlement Judge - Was well prepared for settlement discussions in complex insurance matter. Took the time and resources to settle the matter.

Truly an excellent Judge. Smart, Fair, professional, pleasant and very effective.

Highly respected and well-liked, Fitzsimmons is a great asset to the federal bar. Very fair, treats lawyers and litigants with respect - my clients like her and trust her judgment on matters of settlement.