State v. Conn. State Univ. Org. of Admin. Faculty

1

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY ORGANIZATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FACULTY, AFSCME, COUNCIL 4, LOCAL 2836, AFL-CIO

No. SC 20628

Supreme Court of Connecticut

June 4, 2024

Argued November 21, 2022

Procedural History

Application to vacate an arbitration award, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the defendant filed a motion to confirm the award; thereafter, the case was tried to the court, Hon. Robert B. Shapiro, judge trial referee, who, exercising the powers of the Superior Court, rendered judgment granting the plaintiff's application to vacate and denying the defendant's motion to confirm, from which the defendant appealed. Reversed; judgment directed.

Kelly A. Rommel, for the appellant (defendant).

Maria C. Rodriguez, former assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, and Matthew Larock, former deputy associate attorney general, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Ecker and Alexander, Js.

OPINION

MULLINS, J.

This case presents the question of whether the public policy of this state is violated by an arbitration award ordering the reinstatement of a public sector employee whose employment was terminated after being arrested and charged with crimes involving off-duty conduct. The defendant, the Connecticut State University Organization of Administrative Faculty AFSCME, Council 4, Local 2836, AFL-CIO (union), appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the court's denial of the union's motion to confirm an arbitration award that reinstated the grievant,^[1] a union member, to his employment at Central Connecticut State University (university). The court denied the union's motion to confirm the award, granted an application to vacate the award filed by the plaintiff, the state of Connecticut (state), and rendered judgment thereon, after concluding that the award violated public policy. We disagree that the arbitration award, which reinstated the grievant, violated an explicit, well-defined and dominant public policy and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. At the time of the incident in question, the grievant had been employed by the university as the director of student conduct for approximately fifteen years, and there was no evidence of previous discipline. As the director of student conduct, the grievant was responsible for enforcing the student code of conduct, and, to fulfill his responsibilities, he had to investigate violations of that code. As part of his job duties, he worked closely with the student body, the faculty, the local community, and the local police.

On April 24, 2018, the grievant's wife (wife) called the police and reported that she had left their home after an altercation with the grievant and that she was concerned about the safety of their children, who were still in the home. She told the dispatcher that her husband had threatened to kill her, was going to kill himself, and was '' 'drunk.' '' When Scott Parker, an officer with the Hartford Police Department, arrived, the wife, dressed in her pajamas and a bathrobe, ran up to him and pointed to her home. She reported that the grievant had grabbed her around the throat, began strangling her, and forced her down the stairs to the basement, where he bound her hands and mouth with duct tape. She later testified that she vomited in the basement as a result of his behavior. Officer Parker indicated in his report that he observed red marks around her neck and scratches on her face, but she declined medical treatment.

Officer Parker approached the home and saw the griev-ant in a second floor window. The grievant called to him, saying, ''just come get the kids. I'm not coming out, and I'm not staying in the window.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In response to the police presence around his home, at 12:12 a.m. on April 25, 2018, the grievant called the Hartford Police Department. During this phone call, he told the dispatcher that he wanted someone to come in to get his children. The grievant told the dispatcher that he had guns in the home but informed the dispatcher, ''I will not harm any law enforcement. . . . I will not harm my kids.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) When the dispatcher asked the grievant if he could unload his firearms, the grievant responded, ''I cannot.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

The grievant refused to open the door for the police officers on the scene but told the dispatcher that he was willing to talk to an officer on the scene if the officer would call his cell phone. He then received a call from an officer on the scene, whom he referred to as Chris. He had several conversations with Chris. At 12:31 a.m., Chris told the grievant to '' 'sit tight,' '' that the grievant would receive a call from Officer Mark Manson, and that Officer Manson would discuss the grievant's exit from the home and subsequent arrest.

At 1:38 a.m., nearly one and one-half hours after the grievant initiated contact with the police, Officer Manson contacted the grievant. The grievant and Officer Manson had numerous conversations. Within one hour, the grievant exited the home and was arrested without incident. The grievant's children were asleep and undisturbed during the entire incident.

The police transported the grievant to the hospital for evaluation, a breath test for alcohol and a drug test. The result of the breath test revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.0 percent, and the result of the drug test was negative. On April 25, 2018, the university placed the grievant on administrative leave, pending an investigation. Two weeks after the incident, the wife sought and obtained a civil protective order for one year. The Department of Children and Families also made a determination of physical neglect against the grievant, which was later reversed as unsubstantiated.

Criminally, the state charged the grievant with one count each of kidnapping in the first degree, strangulation in the first degree, threatening in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and breach of the peace in the second degree, and two counts of risk of injury to a child. All of these charges were ultimately dismissed by the trial court on November 14, 2019, pursuant to an oral motion to dismiss filed by the grievant.

While the criminal charges and the investigation by the Department of Children and Families were pending, the university's chief human resources officer, Anna Suski-Lenczewski, conducted an investigation. In a letter of termination sent to the grievant, Suski-Lenczewski explained: ''Your dismissal is for off-duty behavior on the night and early morning of April 24-25, 2018, [that] resulted in a response from the Hartford Police Department and its [e]mergency [r]esponse [t]eam. This behavior created a hazardous situation, placing your spouse, [your] children, police personnel, and yourself at risk [of] grave harm. The seriousness of this misconduct renders you unsuitable to discharge your professional responsibilities as [d]irector of [s]tudent [c]onduct and forms the just cause basis for your termination in accordance with [a]rticle 20.1 of the [collective bargaining agreement between the university and the union].''^[2]

The union contested the termination of the grievant's employment. On July 20 and 24, and August 17, 2020, pursuant to a grievance procedure provision in the parties' collective bargaining agreement, an arbitration hearing was held to determine the issues of (1) whether the dismissal of the grievant was for just cause, and (2) if not, what should be the remedy, consistent with the agreement.^[3] The university presented the testimony of four witnesses at the hearing: Suski-Lenczewski, who testified about the investigation; the university's vice president for student affairs, who testified about the grievant's job duties; Officer Parker, who confirmed several aspects of the police incident report; and the grievant's wife, who corroborated the statements she made during her 911 call to the police and testified that she sought a protective order after the incident.

The union presented thirteen witnesses at the hearing, including the grievant, the university's chief administrative officer, a sergeant with the university's police department, other university employees, and former students. The union also presented the testimony of a licensed clinical social worker, who testified that the grievant had participated in and completed a therapeutic domestic violence offender program after his arrest and had continued work beyond that 6 month course, completing a total of approximately 150 sessions.

The union presented undisputed evidence that the university had no history of disciplining any employee for an off-duty arrest and that no members of the bargaining unit had ever been disciplined for their off-duty conduct. Indeed, the union presented evidence that at least two university employees were arrested for public indecency, including a professor, the university's president was arrested for impersonating a police officer, and another employee was arrested for harassment, but none of those employees was disciplined, let alone terminated.

The arbitrator issued his decision on November 30, 2020 concluding that the university did not have just cause to terminate the employment of the grievant. In reaching his decision, the arbitrator acknowledged that ''[t]his case centers on the credibility of the two main participants to this event, the grievant and his wife .... Each has an entirely different version of the events of that...