Connecticut Employment Law Blog : Connecticut Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Daniel Schwartz : Stamford, Hartford New Haven, CT

In a decision that will be officially released on Tuesday, November 24th, the Connecticut Appellate Court has ruled that wrongful termination and breach of implied contract claims cannot be brought against the State of Connecticut due to the protections of sovereign immunity. 

The case Ware v. State of Connecticut (download here), will be of greater interest to private employers because it also held that the employee did not file a hostile work environment or retaliation claim first with the CHRO -- the state agency responsible for investigating such complaints -- and therefore was barred from bringing those claims in Court (for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies). 

The employee had brought a CHRO claim alleging gender and pregnancy discrimination, but the Appellate Court found that the new claims brought "are not so closely related to the allegations in her complaint to the commission that they reasonably would have been investigated by the commission."

The case presents another chapter in the litany of cases that have been coming down defining the limits of sovereign immunity. Earlier this year, the Connecticut Supreme Court in Lyon v. Jones reversed an appellate court that had relied on sovereign immunity to dismiss an employee's claims.  The claims here are different, but it'll be interesting to see how the Supreme Court reacts to this case and if it decides to weigh in on this issue. 

As a final matter, the court also held that punitive damages cannot be sought against the state in discrimination claims. Again, this decision will bring some clarity on claims brought against the state.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In this blog, I often focus on the substantive law prohibiting discrimination cases, such as those under ADEA.  But a case decided late last week demonstrates the importance of making sure that employees follow the procedural requirements required by law under anti-discrimination provisions..

In Cassotto v. Potter (D.Conn, Oct. 21, 2008) (Hall, J.) (download here), a terminated employee sued for his employer (the U.S. Postal Service) for age discrimination under ADEA without having filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  The employer moved for summary judgment arguing that the employee never exhausted his administrative remedies.

What does that mean? Well, according the Court, ADEA has two options for employees to sue: Either exhaust the EEOC administrative procedures and, if not satisfied with the outcome, bring suit in federal court; or, bypass the administrative procedures by giving the EEOC a "notice of intent" to sue and waiting 30 days.

Here, the court said, the employee did neither and instead tried to rely on other discrimination claims that he filed in the past with the EEOC. The court rejected that argument and said that Second Circuit law puts the burden squarely on the employee to show that he or she has complied.  

For employers, the case is a simple reminder that defending cases of discrimination is often a two-front battle.  Ensuring that employees meet both the procedural requirements and substantive requirements to prove their case may increase the employer's likelihood of successfully defending such claims. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Suppose you, as an employer, have union-backed employees. The union files a grievance on behalf of three employees alleging that they did not receive "premium" pay on three holidays.  Because the dipsute cannot be resolved, the matter is sent to arbitration. 

For some employers, defining the issue to be sent to arbitration may not seem that important; after all, the arbitrator will just hear evidence relating to the supposed issue and issue a decision consistent with that issue.

The Court Decision

But a case released by the Connecticut Supreme Court today (to be officially released August 5, 2008) demonstrates the importance of crafting language that specifies what the exact issue is and what remedies the arbitrator will have available to it.

In Office of Labor Relations v. New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199 (download here), the parties submitted the above factual scenario to an arbitrator with the following issues listed:

Did the [s]tate violate [a]rticle [twenty-one] of the [agreement] in the [s]tate’s application of holiday designation and payment of holiday pay to the [g]rievants? If so, what shall be the appropriate remedy, consistent with the [agreement]?

The arbtirator rendered an award in favor of the union finding that the state did indeed violate the portion of the collective bargaining agreement.  In doing so, the arbtrator issued an decision that ordered that the employer had to change its holiday policy to give premium pay to all employees under the collective bargaining agreement on a going forward basis. 

The state appealed, first to the trial court, and then ultimately to the Connecticut Supreme Court, on the grounds that the arbtirator exceeded his authority when issuing the "remedy" because the arbitrator's decision applied to all employees, not the three employees on whose behalf the issue was grieved.

The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with the state, finding that the question presented should be interpreted like any contract:

As we have stated previously herein, it is well settled that we read contracts of this nature in a way that will give effect to every provision and apply a common sense construction of the words used. Thus, the language of the submission and its internal structure indicate that the question of relief was intended to address the harm to the three individual grievants named in the first question.

In essence, the Supreme Court stated that it was common sense that the remedy could only address the three employees at issue; otherwise, the parties would have structured the request differently.

The Takeaway

So what's the takeaway from this case from an employer perspective (and indeed from a union perspective)? Take time to craft the issues for arbitration in as specific a fashion as possible.  While the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the langauge that was used in this situation, the question presented to the arbitrator could have been more specific and the issue could have been avoided entirely.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link