Breach of Contract Cases

UNJUST ENRICHMENT – EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS: Plaintiff could not substantiate an unjust enrichment claim against defendant because the funds at issue were subject to an express contract and defendant was not a party to that contract. Plaintiff-employer could not show that defendant-employees breached a duty of good faith and loyalty because defendants' errors were inadvertent.

workers' compensation retaliation, disability discrimination, public policy wrongful termination, employer intentional tort, loss of consortium

The plaintiff city sought to vacate an arbitration award reinstating the griev- ant, J, a member of the defendant union, to her employment as executive director of the city's Commission on Equal Opportunities. In that posi- tion, J oversaw construction contract compliance and enforcement of the chapter of the city's code of ordinances that requires building con- tractors doing business with the city to hire certain percentages of women, minorities and city residents. The union filed a grievance, claim- ing that the city did not have just cause to terminate J's employment. Thereafter, pursuant to the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the matter proceeded to a hearing before an arbitration panel, which issued an award in which it found that the city had proven only three of the eleven factual claims that it had asserted justified J's termination, specifically, that she failed to comply with a certain request for informa- tion during the city's investigation of the relationship between the com- mission and a certain training and employment program created and funded by the city, which was operated under the auspices of the com- mission, until it was spun off into a legally separate private entity, that she formed C Co., a private company that advertised contract compliance services in Connecticut, without informing the city, and that she issued four memoranda under her signature soliciting donations for the subject program from contractors in lieu of fines, despite having been warned by the city's corporation counsel office that doing so could expose her, commission staff or the city to potential claims of bribery. The panel concluded that, although J's misconduct was serious in nature, the city was not justified in terminating J's employment. The panel, therefore, ordered that J be reinstated to her position; however, she did not receive two years of back pay and benefits. The city filed an application to vacate the award, claiming that the award violated the

The plaintiff city sought to vacate an arbitration award reinstating the griev- ant, J, a member of the defendant union, to her employment as executive director of the city's Commission on Equal Opportunities. In that posi- tion, J oversaw construction contract compliance and enforcement of the chapter of the city's code of ordinances that requires building con- tractors doing business with the city to hire certain percentages of women, minorities and city residents. The union filed a grievance, claim- ing that the city did not have just cause to terminate J's employment. Thereafter, pursuant to the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the matter proceeded to a hearing before an arbitration panel, which issued an award in which it found that the city had proven only three of the eleven factual claims that it had asserted justified J's termination, specifically, that she failed to comply with a certain request for informa- tion during the city's investigation of the relationship between the com- mission and a certain training and employment program created and funded by the city, which was operated under the auspices of the com- mission, until it was spun off into a legally separate private entity, that she formed C Co., a private company that advertised contract compliance services in Connecticut, without informing the city, and that she issued four memoranda under her signature soliciting donations for the subject program from contractors in lieu of fines, despite having been warned by the city's corporation counsel office that doing so could expose her, commission staff or the city to potential claims of bribery. The panel concluded that, although J's misconduct was serious in nature, the city was not justified in terminating J's employment. The panel, therefore, ordered that J be reinstated to her position; however, she did not receive two years of back pay and benefits. The city filed an application to vacate the award, claiming that the award violated the