Retaliation Cases

The plaintiff city sought to confirm an arbitration award issued in connection with the termination of the defendant's employment as a police officer for the city. The city's chief of police, C, requested an internal affairs investigation of the defendant on the basis of his alleged insubordination and misappropriation of public funds after he enrolled in a training course at the city's expense even though his request to attend that training had been denied. Upon learning of this investigation, the defen- dant filed a complaint against C in which he alleged a pattern of retalia- tory conduct. An independent consultant, R, was hired to conduct the internal affairs investigation of the defendant, and he concluded, in relevant part, that the insubordination allegation was substantiated. The city hired an attorney, A, to investigate the defendant's allegations against C. A concluded that the totality of the evidence did not support, and in many instances was contradictory to, a finding of retaliation by C. As a result of A's findings, the city manager placed the defendant on administrative leave and requested that an internal affairs investigation be conducted regarding the defendant's allegations against C. R was retained to act as an independent hearing officer. R reviewed the results of A's investigation and determined that many of the defendant's allega- tions against C were not made in good faith and that some were know- ingly false, and that the defendant violated certain police department rules and an order pertaining to topics such as accountability, dishonesty and retaliatory conduct. Upon R's recommendation, the city terminated the defendant's employment. The defendant's union filed a grievance on behalf of the defendant, which was submitted to arbitration. After a hearing, the arbitration panel made numerous factual findings and issued its award, which stated that the defendant's termination had been for just cause. The city filed an application with the tria

In each case, the plaintiff minor child, A and B, respectively, and his parents, sought to recover damages from the defendants, the town of Westport, its board of education, the town's superintendent of schools, L, and certain employees of one of the town's middle schools, namely, the principal, S, the vice principal, M, and a physical education teacher, Q, for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of, inter alia, the defendants' negligence in responding to reports of bullying of A and B by their classmates while they attended the middle school. Both cases arose out of the same incident, during which A and B were attacked by other students while in gym class. The plaintiffs filed reports detailing the gym incident and prior incidents of bullying with the school's administration. Thereafter, A and B both had bullying complaints filed against them by other students involved in the gym incident and they received suspen- sions as a result thereof. A few weeks later, A was again bullied by a fellow student. He reported the incident to S, who insisted that he write down his account of what had occurred. When A instead asked to speak with his father, S grabbed his arm in a hostile manner and shook it. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that, in their handling of the bullying incidents, the defendants failed to comply with the safe school climate plan that had previously been implemented at the direction of the board in accordance with the applicable statute ((Rev. to 2015) § 10-222d). The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants retaliated against them for filing their bullying complaints by, among other things, issuing sus- pensions to A and B. Additionally, in the first action, the plaintiffs alleged that S assaulted A when she grabbed and shook his arm. The trial court consolidated the cases and granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment with respect to all claims except those against S in connection with the first action, as it found that there was

The plaintiff town appealed to the Superior Court from the decision of the defendant State Board of Labor Relations determining that the town had unilaterally changed an established past practice of including extra duty pay in the calculation of pensions for members of the defendant union, M Co., in violation of the Municipal Employees Relations Act (§ 7-467 et seq.). The town established a retirement committee to admin- ister its retirement plan, consisting of three members appointed by the town. In the midst of ongoing negotiations with M Co. for a successor collective bargaining agreement, the retirement committee notified M Co. that it had decided to exclude extra duty pay from pension calcula- tions. M Co. filed a complaint with the labor board, alleging that the town violated the act when the retirement committee unilaterally elimi- nated extra duty pay from pension calculations. The town claimed, inter alia, that the labor board lacked jurisdiction over the complaint because the retirement committee was not a municipal employer under the act as defined by statute (§ 7-467). The labor board issued a finding that the town violated the statute (§ 7-470 (a) (4)) requiring municipal employers to bargain in good faith when the retirement committee excluded extra duty pay from the calculation of pensions. The labor board found, inter alia, that there was a consistent past practice of including extra duty pay in pension calculations that had endured for almost thirty years. It rejected the town's contract defense, concluding that M Co. had not waived its right to bargain over changes to the calculation of future retirement benefits. The labor board applied its well established standard that a waiver must be clear and unmistakable. During the pendency of the town's administrative appeal, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision in MV Transportation, Inc. (368 N.L.R.B. No. 66), in which it abandoned the clear and unmistakable waiver standard for determining