In a decision that reaffirms the strength of arbitration awards and the limits of judicial review, the Connecticut Appellate Court reversed a trial court’s decision to vacate an arbitration award reinstating a police sergeant terminated for use of force during an arrest. The case, City of Torrington v. Council 4, AFSCME, offers some important reminders for public and private employers navigating discipline in unionized workplaces and for arbitration proceedings too.

According to the case, Gerald Peters, a seasoned sergeant with the Torrington Police Department, was terminated after using pepper spray and a takedown maneuver on an arrestee during booking. Peters had warned the arrestee, who was intoxicated, combative, and armed earlier, and, according to the case, believed force was necessary to prevent injury when removing the handcuffs.

Although no injuries occurred and the state police declined to pursue criminal charges, the department fired Peters following an external investigation that concluded he used excessive force. The union grieved the termination, and an arbitration panel found the use of force was objectively reasonable under department policy and not excessive, ordering Peters reinstated with full back pay.

The City of Torrington sought to vacate the award, arguing it violated public policy and that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law. The trial court agreed and ordered a new arbitration. On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed.

The Appellate Court emphasized:

• No Manifest Disregard of the Law: The court found that the arbitration panel applied the correct legal standard, which requires evaluating police use of force from the viewpoint of a reasonable officer on the scene—not in hindsight, and not based on the officer’s personal feelings.
• No Public Policy Violation: Even though public safety is involved, the court also found that reinstatement did not violate public policy because the force used was found to be within policy and objectively reasonable. The Court applied an established four-part test and concluded that only one factor (public safety) weighed against reinstatement—not enough to overturn the award.

So what are the takeaways for employers?

As I’ve talked about before, courts in Connecticut will not second-guess an arbitrator’s decision—even if the court might have reached a different conclusion. Even in police discipline cases, where public trust and safety are central, employers must show that reinstating the employee would clearly violate an explicit and well-defined public policy. If the conduct was found reasonable under department policy, courts are unlikely to intervene.

Ultimately, this case is a strong reminder that discipline decisions, even in high-profile or public safety contexts, must be thoroughly grounded in objective policy violations and procedural fairness. Where arbitration is the agreed dispute resolution method, its outcomes—right or wrong—will typically be final.