 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mercer v. Rodriquez6/8/2004
g medical authorization, the plaintiff was not.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants intentionally denied him an equal opportunity to benefit from the marker shop program on the basis of their irrational concerns, perceptions or fears for his safety. He also alleged that the defendants did not prevent him from participating in the marker shop work program due to the necessity of an accommodation that would exceed the requirements of the disabilities act or impose an undue financial administrative burden. Furthermore, the plaintiff believed that the department receives federal funds.
We note, significantly, that the plaintiff did not allege specifically that he had exhausted the available administrative remedies. Despite the absence of this specific allegation, we grant the plaintiff's complaint the liberal interpretation to which it is entitled. The plaintiff alleged that he submitted and resubmitted applications to participate in the marker shop work program. He discussed the situation with certain of the defendants. In the trial court, he presented the court with copies of correspondence with the department ombudsman related to the issue. The parties disputed the issue of exhaustion before the court. If the court had found that the plaintiff had exhausted the available administrative remedies, he could have amended his complaint to incorporate that allegation. See Practice Book ยง 10-62. Unfortunately, for the plaintiff, the court found that he had not exhausted his remedies under the department's grievance system.
In the trial court and on appeal, the parties dispute whether the opportunity the plaintiff sought in the marker shop was related to classification, a program or employment. The essence of the plaintiff's claim is that the court incorrectly held that he had not exhausted his available remedies because the claim was grievable. By referring to his claim both in the trial court and here as a classification issue, the plaintiff argues that pursuant to department administrative directive 9.6, classification issues are not subject to the department's grievance system. He concludes, therefore, that there was no available remedy for him to exhaust.
In resolving the plaintiff's claims, we need not determine whether the opportunity the plaintiff sought in the marker shop concerned employment, classification or programming. The department has promulgated certain administrative directives. Directive 9.2 addresses the inmate classification system, and directive 9.6 concerns a multitiered grievance system. The classification directive provides at 9.2.15 that " classification decision may be appealed to the Unit Administrator or designee within 15 days of the decision." The amended complaint does not allege that the plaintiff availed himself of directive 9.2.15. The plaintiff did not allege that any of the defendants are the unit administrator or designee or that any of his actions were taken within fifteen days of a decision. Although the court did not address classification issues, nothing the plaintiff attached to his objection to the defendants' motion to dismiss is relevant to directive 9.2.15. If the plaintiff's claim is a classification issue, we conclude that he did not exhaust the available administrative remedy of an appeal as provided in directive 9.2.15.
The plaintiff correctly argues that classification decisions are not grievable pursuant to directive 9.6.6.B.4. Directive 9.6.6.A sets forth inmate concerns that are grievable. Subdivision five provides that the following issues are grievable: "Any other matter relating to access to privileges, programs and services, conditions of care or supervision and living unit conditions within the auth
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Connecticut Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|