Board of Ed. of West Haven v. Commission on Civil Rights

• Decision Date: 17 May 1966
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: , 9 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1235, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9740 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WEST HAVEN v. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS of the State of Connecticut.

Page 278

220 A.2d 278

153 Conn. 652, 9 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1235,

1 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9740

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WEST HAVEN v. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS of the State of Connecticut.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

May 17, 1966.

Charles H. Fischer, Jr., West Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Eugene J. Dorsi, Herbert D. Fischer and James T. Brennan, West Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).

Carl D. Eisenman, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were F. Michael Ahern, Asst. Atty. Gen., and, on the brief, Harold M. Mulvey, Atty. Gen., for appellee (defendant).

Ira B. Grudberg, New Haven, filed a brief as amicus curiae but did not argue the cause.

Before KING, C.J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, SHANNON and HOUSE, JJ.

MURPHY, Associate Justice.

Borden P. Steeves filed a complaint dated December 18, 1963, with the commission on civil rights, charging that the board of education in West Haven had discriminated against him because of his age when it appointed a supervisor of adult education, a position for which he was a candidate. A hearing tribunal of three hearing examiners heard the complaint. In a two to one decision, the tribunal's majority concluded that the board had committed an unfair employment practice in violation of General Statutes § 31-126 in that it had discriminated against Steeves because of his age, and the tribunal ordered the board to offer Steeves the supervisor's position for the following school year and to pay him the salary for the two school years he had lost. The board appealed to the Superior Court, which sustained the action of the tribunal and dismissed missed the appeal. From the judgment rendered, the board has taken this appeal.

In 1963, the position of supervisor of adult education in the West Haven school system became vacant when the incumbent, Edward L. Bennett, was appointed assistant superintendent of schools. On September 3, 1963, the board voted to limit the applicants for the vacancy 'to qualified classroom teachers, department heads or supervisors with administrative potential.' This qualification resulted from the recommendations of an educational consultant from Columbia University who had surveyed the West Haven school system a year before. A new high school and several elementary schools were being built. The consultant advised training and using teachers with administrative potential for appointment as administrators as the system expanded.

At the next regular meeting of the board on October 1, 1963, the agenda contained a recommendation of the assistant superintendent of schools, approved by the superintendent, that Steeves be appointed supervisor of adult education and that George Richards be appointed as his assistant. A board member, Donald D. Dest, protested that the item should not have been on the agenda since the members had not seen or reviewed the applications for the position. Another member, Jerome Campane, then moved to make the appointments in accordance with the recommendation. The motion was seconded. At the request of Dest, action of the motion was postponed to permit the board members to examine the applications. There were five or six applicants. During the examination and discussion of the applications, Dest remarked that Steeves was fifty years of age and that he wanted a young man to be training as a potential administrator in this position. After a forty-five minute discussion, the motion was put to a vote and was lost four to two. The Reverend Jervis S. Zimmerman, rector of the Christ Church in West Haven, then moved to appoint Richards as supervisor and William J. Heffernan as his assistant. This motion was seconded by the secretary, Paul C. Anderson, and was carried four to two.

There was no stenographic or mechanical recording of the minutes of the meeting and of the discussions between the members. The clerk of the board, a nonmember, prepared a summary of the highlights of the meeting as being the minutes thereof. Dest's observation of Steeves' age appears in the summary, which also states that Mr. Zimmerman agreed with Dest's remarks. There is no other reference in the minutes to Steeves' age or that his age as such was discussed by the members of the board as an element to be considered in selecting one of the applicants for the vacancy.

Steeves' complaint of discrimination was filed with the commission within the statutory period; General Statutes § 31-127; and was properly before the hearing tribunal after it had been processed by the commission's representatives. The tribunal held hearings on December 10, 1964, and on February 17, 1965. Four of the six board members who participated in the October 1, 1963, meeting testified. Melvin E. Wagner, who was, at the time of the meeting, the superintendent of schools, and Bennett, his assistant at that time, also testified. Between the date of that meeting and the hearings by the hearing tribunal, Bennett succeeded Wagner as superintendent of schools. With the exception of Campane, all of the board members who testified denied that Steeves' age was a consideration influencing them in turning down the advisory recommendation of the superintendent although Dest Admitted that, when he was looking over Steeves' application, he had mentioned that Steeves was fifty years old. Dest testified that Steeves, although he had been in the school system for quite some time, had not demonstrated any administrative ability and that in his opinion Steeves did not possess the qualifications for the position which Richards did. Mr. Zimmerman testified that the statement in the summary of the minutes that he agreed with Dest's remarks referred to his agreement 'with the general tenor of his remarks that we wanted someone who seemed to show promise as a future administrator in our system, for whom this would serve as an in-service training position, not with any specific reference to his age.' Anderson testified that he could not recall any discussion relative to age at the October 1, 1963, meeting and that he voted for Richards over Steeves because Richards' certification was a little broader and because Richards was ambitious and aggressive and, in his judgment, was better qualified for the position. The fourth member of the board who voted for Richards was ...