Forestier v. City of Bridgeport

308 A.3d 102

223 Conn.App. 298

Jonathan FORESTIER et al.

v.CITY OF BRIDGEPORT et al.

(AC 45548)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 11, 2023

Officially Released January 16, 2024

John T. Bochanis, Bridgeport, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

John P. Bohannon, Jr., deputy city attorney, for the appellants (named defendant et al.).

Richard J. Buturla, Milford, with whom was Warren L. Holcomb, for the appellant (defendant Board of Education of the City of Bridgeport).

Clark, Seeley and DiPentima, Js.

SEELEY, J.

₃₀₁This appeal arises out of an action by the plaintiffs, Jonathan Forestier and Stephen Vitka,¹ against the defendant city of Bridgeport (city) and the defendant Board of Education of the City of Bridgeport (board)² alleging that the plaintiffs wrongfully had been laid off from their employment as special police officers with the board for having exercised their rights to workers’ compensation benefits, in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 31-290a (a).³ The trial court granted motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants and rendered judgment in their favor, from which the plaintiffs have appealed. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether (1) the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of discrimination, and (2) the defendants’ proffered nondiscriminatory reason ₃₀₂for the elimination of the plaintiffs’ positions and their layoffs was a pretext for discrimination. We affirm the judgment of the court.

The following facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs as the nonmoving parties, or as otherwise undisputed in the record, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. Vitka, a graduate of the Bridgeport Police Academy, commenced working as a special police officer assigned to the board in 1997. Similarly, Forestier, a graduate of the Hartford Police Academy, commenced working as a special police officer assigned to the board in 2011. As special police officers for the board, the plaintiffs’ employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement between the city and the National Association of Government Employees, R1-200 (NAGE).⁴ The board was not a party to the contract between NAGE and the city. By 2016, five individuals in total worked as special police officers for the board.

The plaintiffs’ work as special police officers included patrolling the neighborhoods around the schools; the plaintiffs were not assigned to any specific school building. In 2012, however, the Bridgeport Police Department assumed authority over security for the public schools in Bridgeport, and, as a result, the plaintiffs began reporting directly to Police Lieutenant Paul Grech, a supervising officer with the Bridgeport Police Department.⁵ The special police officers also started performing duties outside of the school area, including ₃₀₃handling regular police calls, performing radar enforcement and motor vehicle stops, and providing backup assistance to regular police officers.

In February, 2014, Forestier sustained an injury to his back during the course of his employment for which he sought and received workers’ compensation benefits. As a result of the injury, he was restricted to light duty and did not miss any time from work. Following an MRI, however, his doctor recommended that he undergo back surgery. After Forestier informed Grech of his need for back surgery, Grech told Forestier that he "would be dumb to get … back surgery" and that, if he underwent the surgery, his career would end and no police department would ever hire him. Forestier held off getting the surgery until September, 2016, out of fear of losing his job. In his affidavit, Forestier attested that he had been approved by the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner to wear a tactical vest "to minimize [his] pain so that immediate surgery would not be necessary. … Grech also opposed the vest … [and] made it known to [Forestier that he] didn’t need the vest in [Grech’s] opinion." Forestier wore the vest, despite the fact that it was clear to him that Grech was unhappy and that Forestier "would pay for this later."

In November, 2015, Vitka sustained a work-related injury to his wrist for which he sought and received workers’ compensation benefits. As a result of his injury, Vitka missed five to six months of work, and he returned to full duty in May, 2016. In his deposition testimony, Vitka testified that, when he returned to work following his injury, he spoke with Grech about having surgery on his wrist, but that Grech turned the conversation to the topic of Forestier’s back surgery and made statements about how Forestier was going to lose his job and that he was not going to be hired anywhere else. Grech also talked about another special ₃₀₄police officer, Jeffrey Babey, who also had sustained a compensable work-related injury, and how Babey was going to lose his job. Vitka testified at his deposition that, although Grech never told him not to have the surgery, he felt that Grech’s numerous comments about Forestier and Babey insinuated that Vitka should forgo having the wrist surgery. Despite the fact that his treating physician recommended that he have surgery on his wrist, Vitka never had the surgery.

A regular meeting of the board was held on June 27, 2016, at which the members of the board voted to pass a motion to eliminate the five special police officer positions from the board’s 2016-2017 budget. At the time of that vote, the Bridgeport School District (school district) faced a financial crisis⁶ due to the fact that the operating budget for the school district for the fiscal year 2016-2017 increased by only $59,550. Given the rising costs associated with general wage and salary increases as required by collective bargaining agreements, health insurance, and special education, there was an initial budget deficit of almost $16 million, which was subsequently reduced to a $15 million deficit after an additional appropriation to the board of $905,000 was made. See footnote 6 of this opinion. In an effort to close that gap without reducing the number of classroom teachers, the school district eliminated 130 positions from the 2016-2017 fiscal year budget, either by attrition, movement to different positions or layoffs. ₃₀₅The eliminated positions included, inter alia, forty-seven kindergarten paraprofessionals, twenty-six home school coordinators, thirty university interns, nine clerical employees for the school district’s office, five elementary school guidance counselors, the five special police officers, one custodian and one maintenance person.

At the outset of the June 27, 2016 board meeting, concerns were expressed regarding budget cuts and the financial issues facing the school district. Board member Howard Gardner, speaking on behalf of the finance committee of the board, made several recommendations, including moving to eliminate the special police officer positions from the 2016-2017 budget. His motion was seconded by board member Maria Pereira, and Gardner commented that "the concern is not the officers themselves, but the way they are being managed by the city." Pereira stated: "[T]he [special police officers] for the most part are wonderful, but the reality is we started with a $16 million deficit because the mayor didn’t give one extra dollar for schools initially …. Now, the city has contributed an additional $900,000, leaving the board with a $15 million deficit. … [T]he board had ten [special police officers] in its budget in 2013. Five [of them] who retired weren’t replaced and the dollars were shifted to security guards. … [T]he [special police officers] have been used for nonschool work, including domestic violence calls and traffic enforcement, even though the board pays the full salary of [those officers]. … [T]he five [special police officers] make $49[2],000 a year, not including overtime, and that amount was being directed back into schools and positions that work directly with children." Thereafter, Pereira moved that the board keep the five special police officers under the conditions that their salaries be funded by the city and the city stops directing them to perform work unrelated to the schools. Pereira, ₃₀₆however, withdrew her motion after a board member suggested that it was overly complicated. The original motion to eliminate the positions was approved by a vote of six to two. Thereafter, the five special police officers were laid off from their positions effective August 12, 2016.

After the layoffs, Vitka was able to exercise bumping rights under his union contract and was offered a position as a school security guard. Because the salary for that position was substantially less than what Vitka was being paid as a special police officer, he worked as a school security guard for just a few months. In January, 2017, Vitka secured employment with the Naugatuck Police Department. In contrast to Vitka, Forestier was not able to bump into another position after he was laid off. In March, 2017, he was hired by the Stratford Police Department.

Following the elimination of the special police officer positions by the board in 2016, NAGE filed a grievance on their behalf against the city and the board. In early 2016, as a result of financial difficulties, the city had entered into a memorandum of understanding with NAGE, thereby amending their existing collective bargaining agreement. The memorandum of understanding provided for lower to no wage increases but also provided that there would be no layoffs of unionized employees from July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2018. The grievance alleged a violation of the no layoff provision. The matter went to arbitration before an arbitration panel, which issued an award dated July 20, 2018, determining that the memorandum of understanding had been violated and ordering the reinstatement...