Becker v. Western Connecticut State University

Thomas Becker v. Western Connecticut State University

No. DBDCV186031294

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Danbury, Danbury

January 7, 2020

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Brazzel-Massaro, Barbara, J.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO DISMISS #137

Brazzel-Massaro, J.

INTRODUCTION

This action was filed by way of a writ, summons and complaint on April 20, 2018. The plaintiff Thomas Becker was an adjunct professor at Western Connecticut State University teaching one class in the fall of 2017. He filed the original complaint in six counts against three defendants. The plaintiff has withdrawn counts and the court has dismissed count one. There are two remaining counts, count two and count three. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss these counts on August 8, 2019, which both seek declaratory judgment. The grounds for the motion to dismiss include: (1) the claims are moot because the plaintiff had a limited one semester teaching contract that ended on December 17, 2017 the investigation concluded, and the plaintiff suffered no discipline; (2) the claims against a state agency and individual defendants acting in their official capacity are barred by sovereign immunity; (3) with respect to count two, the plaintiff’s federal due process claim is barred by the eleventh amendment of the United States constitution and sovereign immunity; (4) with respect to count three, the plaintiff’s due process claim under the Connecticut constitution is barred because courts do not recognize a private cause of action under article 1, § 8 of the Connecticut constitution; (5) ripeness because the plaintiff did not exhaust the remedies available at Western before filing suit, and (6) the plaintiff failed to allege a violation. The plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition dated September 10, 2019. The defendant filed a reply on September 12, 2019. The court heard argument on October 7, 2019.

FACTS

On April 19, 2018, the plaintiff, Thomas Becker (Becker), served the defendants Western Connecticut State University (Western), Western’s Chief Diversity Officer Jessica Minier-Delgado (Minier-Delgado), and Western’s President John Clark (Clark) a six-count complaint. Count one is an administrative appeal claim, count two is a request for declaratory judgment regarding the plaintiff’s due process under the United States constitution, count three is a request for declaratory judgment regarding the plaintiff’s due process under the Connecticut constitution, count four is an invasion of privacy claim, count five is an abuse of process claim, and count six is a defamation claim. On July 31, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. The plaintiff subsequently withdrew counts four, five, and six of the complaint on October 23, 2018. On April 22, 2019, the court, Cohn, J. dismissed count one. On August 8, 2019, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss counts two and three of the complaint. The plaintiff filed an objection to the defendants’ motion to dismiss on September 10, 2019. The defendants filed a reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss on September 12, 2019, and filed four subsequent notices of supplemental authority. On October 7, 2019, the court heard oral argument on this matter.

The plaintiff alleges the following facts in the complaint. The plaintiff entered into a contract with Western to teach two philosophy courses as an adjunct professor on August 31, 2017. On or about October 21, 2017, the plaintiff was hand served a notice containing allegations against him by Minier-Delgado. The plaintiff alleges that he immediately denied the allegations and informed Minier-Delgado that the established protocol deprived the plaintiff of his legally required due process rights under the fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution and article one, § 8 of the Connecticut constitution. The plaintiff also alleges that despite the plaintiff pointing out the deficiencies and requesting that the procedures be reviewed, Minier-Delgado continued with the investigation and issued findings and a decision on January 29, 2018. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants’ actions have irreparably harmed the plaintiff in the following ways: his professional reputation, as a lawyer and a doctor of philosophy, has been harmed, he incurred costs and lost income; his reputation was damaged when Minier-Delgado and other agents of Western shared the claims against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was not allowed to return to Western or contact his students, and the plaintiff is unable to complete a scholarly writing he had been working on as a result of being banished from Western’s campus.

DISCUSSION

"A motion to dismiss ... properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Santoroso v. Bristol Hospital, 308 Conn. 338, 350, 63 A.3d 940 (2013). "[T]he court in deciding a motion to dismiss must consider the allegations of the complaint in their most favorable light." Savage v. Aronson, 214 Conn. 256, 63, 571 A.2d 696 (1990). "A court deciding a motion to dismiss must determine not the merits of the claim or even its legal sufficiency, but rather, whether the claim is one that the court has jurisdiction to hear and decide." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hinde v. Specialized Education of Connecticut, Inc., 147 Conn.App. 730, 740-41, 84 A.3d 895 (2014).

"Trial courts addressing motions to dismiss ... pursuant to § 10-31(a)(1) may encounter different situations, depending on the status of the record in the case ... [L]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may be found in any one of three instances: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts ... Different rules and procedures will apply, depending on the state of the record at the time the motion is filed." (Citation omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 974 A.2d 669 (2009) (subject matter jurisdiction).

"[I]f the complaint is supplemented by undisputed facts established by affidavits submitted in support of the motion to dismiss ... other types of undisputed evidence ... and/or public records of which judicial notice may be taken ... the trial court, in determining the jurisdictional issue, may consider these supplementary undisputed facts and need not conclusively presume the validity of the allegations of the complaint ... Rather, those allegations are tempered by the light shed on them by the [supplementary undisputed facts] ... lf affidavits and/or other evidence submitted in support of a defendant’s motion to dismiss conclusively establish that jurisdiction is lacking, and the plaintiff fails to undermine this conclusion with counteraffidavits ... or other evidence the trial court may dismiss the action without further proceedings ... If, however, the defendant submits either no proof to rebut the plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations ... or only evidence that fails to call those allegations into question ... the plaintiff need not supply counteraffidavits or other evidence to support the complaint, but may rest on the jurisdictional allegations therein." (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Conboy v State, supra, 292 Conn. 851-52.

A. Mootness

"Mootness ... implicates subject matter jurisdiction, which imposes a duty on the court to dismiss a case if the court can no longer grant practical relief to the parties." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Batchelder v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 133 Conn.App. 173, 180, 34 A.3d 465, cert, denied, 304 Conn. 913, 40 A.3d 319 (2012). "Since mootness implicates subject matter jurisdiction ... it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 240 Conn. 1, 6, 688 A.2d 314 (1997).

The defendants argue that the claims are moot because the plaintiff had a limited contract as an adjunct professor to teach at Western only for the fall 2017 semester, he had not applied for additional employment, and the investigation had concluded before the lawsuit was filed. The defendants also argue that because there is no actual controversy to be determined, no practical relief may be granted. The defendants further argue that the plaintiff had the right under the applicable collective bargaining agreement to seek review of the process being used and to have due process but that the plaintiff ignored this contractual right. The defendants cite to the affidavit of Fred Cratty, Western’s Chief Human Resources Officer, and Appendix F to the contract for faculty with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The plaintiff argues in response that the state’s action in depriving him of his due process rights caused him damage, including the destruction of his reputation. The plaintiff also argues that the state’s failure to conduct a proper investigation, to provide constitutional safeguards, and to provide a reasonable and rational form for processing the discrimination claim led to the decision of the officer as well as the reconsideration and reaffirmation by the president, all of which will be part of the plaintiff’s permanent file. The plaintiff further argues that he was not afforded a lawyer and was told that only contract claims, and no constitutional claims,...