 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sobczak v. Board of Education of the City of Meriden3/15/2005
The plaintiff John Sobczak appeals from the judgment of the trial court, following a jury trial, in favor of the defendants, the board of education of the city of Meriden (board) and Elizabeth Ruocco. Although the plaintiff raises multiple claims of instructional and evidentiary error, the dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff failed to exhaust the grievance procedure set forth in the collective bargaining agreement (agreement) between the board and the Meriden federation of municipal employees. We conclude that he did, thereby depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case with direction to render judgment dismissing the action.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. For twenty-seven years, the plaintiff was employed as a custodian by the board. In December, 1997, he grew increasingly concerned about the allegedly inequitable use of overtime by his supervisor, Ed Boganski. While cleaning the office of a secretary to the principal of Washington Middle School, the plaintiff discovered custodian payroll records in a file cabinet. He then made copies of those documents. On December 17, 1997, the plaintiff and three other custodians filed a grievance with their union and the school principal, accusing Boganski of " arassment," " buse of power," " eceiving and misleading overtime record keeping," and " otal disregard for [their] contract . . . ." The plaintiff also informed union president Ricky Allen that he had obtained copies of the payroll records. Two days later, John Cordani, head of the buildings and ground department for the city of Meriden, met with the plaintiff. After Cordani cautioned the plaintiff that his activities in obtaining the records potentially were criminal, the plaintiff signed a resignation letter. At that time, he was fifty-nine years old.
Thereafter, this action commenced. The plaintiff filed a six count complaint that included a count alleging age discrimination pursuant to both the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq. The defendants filed a motion to strike that count on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not filing a complaint with the commission on human rights and opportunities. On October 6, 2000, the court granted the motion. The plaintiff then filed a four count amended complaint alleging constructive termination, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrongful termination and negligent infliction of emotional distress. In response, the defendants filed an answer and four special defenses. The matter was tried to the jury. Following the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendants moved for a directed verdict, contending that, as the plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court reserved its decision on that motion. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on all counts, and this appeal followed.
I.
The defendants claim that, because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. "A determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. When . . . the trial court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary and we must decide whether its conclusions are legally and logically correct and find support in the facts that appear in the record." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kobyluck v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 84 Conn. App. 160, 165, 852 A.2d 826, cer
Page 1 2 3 4 Connecticut Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|