Cammisa v. Board of Ed. of City of Waterbury

• Citation: 175 Conn. 445,399 A.2d 521
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 25 July 1978
• Parties: Jaye CAMMISA et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF WATERBURY. Linda DeTOTO et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF WATERBURY.

Page 521

399 A.2d 521

175 Conn. 445

Jaye CAMMISA et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF WATERBURY.

Linda DeTOTO et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF WATERBURY.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Feb. 10, 1978.

Decision Released July 25, 1978.

Martin A. Gould, Hartford, with whom was Kevin T. Nixon, Naugatuck, for appellants (plaintiffs).

John F. Phelan, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Waterbury, with whom, on brief, was Mark D. Capuano, Waterbury, for appellee (defendant).

Before COTTER, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and HEALEY, JJ.

LONGO, Associate Justice.

In two appeals taken to the Court of Common Pleas the plaintiffs in the Cammisa and DeToto cases unsuccessfully sought to revoke the decision of the defendant board of education of the city of Waterbury, hereinafter the board, not to renew their contracts of employment as nontenured teachers for the 1976-1977 school year. By stipulation of the parties the plaintiffs' appeals to this court were consolidated because the questions presented are substantially the same.

The relevant facts as found by the two trial courts may be summarized as follows: On February 27, 1976, notices from the board and the superintendent of schools were sent to all 223 nontenured teachers in the Waterbury school system, stating that because of "severe economic pressures and budgetary restraints" the board had decided, pursuant to General Statutes § 10-151, not to renew their employment contracts for the school year 1976-1977. When asked by the teachers for a statement of reasons and a hearing, the board replied that budget cuts were expected, that it was uncertain how many teachers would be needed for the 1976-1977 school year, and that no hearing would be scheduled until the teachers indicated under what authority they claimed the right to a hearing. The named plaintiff Jaye Cammisa and the rest of the nontenured teachers appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. The court (McGuinness, J.) concluded that the plaintiffs' rights of employment and appeal were governed by § 10-151 of the General Statutes and not by the Waterbury charter as claimed by the plaintiffs; that their contracts were properly nonrenewed under § 10- 151(a), which provides a right to an administrative hearing but not a right of appeal to a court; that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies; and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Of the 223 Cammisa plaintiffs who received notices of nonrenewal dated February 27, 1976 (just prior to the March 1 deadline specified in § 10-151(a)), only seventy-one were ultimately denied employment by a second notice of nonrenewal dated June 16, 1976. The named plaintiff Linda DeToto and the other teachers so notified appealed again to the Court of Common Pleas. The court (Kline, J.) agreed with the reasoning of the Cammisa decision and sustained the board's plea in abatement, except as to three plaintiffs who had acquired tenure prior to the sending of the second notice of nonrenewal.

We first consider the issue of mootness. At oral argument it was established that most of the plaintiffs who received second notices of nonrenewal were in fact rehired or reinstated for the 1976-1977 school year, but that approximately twenty plaintiffs had not been rehired. As to those plaintiffs practical relief can follow from our decision and their appeal, therefore, may be maintained. See Phaneuf v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 166 Conn. 449, 452, 352 A.2d 291. The board contends that the appeal is moot as to the two remaining groups of plaintiffs: the 152 plaintiffs in Cammisa who received only first notices of nonrenewal, and the approximately forty-eight DeToto plaintiffs who received second notices of nonrenewal but who were subsequently rehired, presumably during the summer preceding the 1976-1977 school year. The board's claim is disputed on the ground that the plaintiffs in both categories suffered injury as a result of the board's actions, such as loss of seniority and fringe benefits. Such questions of fact bearing on mootness and appropriate forms of relief are not part of the record before us and must be determined by the trial courts on remand, for we have decided that they erred in rendering judgments for the board.

Although the plaintiffs raise numerous claims of error, a single issue is dispositive of the case: whether their employment and appeal rights are governed by the Waterbury charter or by § 10-151 of the General Statutes. Section 10-151 applies by its terms to all teachers employed by boards of education but also provides, in subsection (d), that "(t)he provisions of any special act regarding the dismissal or employment of teachers shall prevail over the provisions of this section in the event of conflict."

The initial question of statutory construction is whether "dismissal" as used in § 10-151(d) encompasses nonrenewal of a nontenured teacher's contract; we hold that it does. Elsewhere, in subsections (a) and (b), the statute speaks only of contract "renewal" and "termination" for nontenured and tenured teachers. The word "dismissal" appears but once, in subsection (d). This suggests that the legislature intended the term to have its customary broad meaning of sending or removing from office or employment, whether by terminating a teacher's contract or by declining to renew it. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary. Nothing in the language of § 10-151 indicates that the legislature was less solicitous of the rights of nontenured teachers created by special acts than of the rights of tenured teachers. ¹

Two provisions of the Waterbury charter have been brought to our attention as controlling the dismissal of teachers in Waterbury. Section 903(b), ² enacted as Special Act No. 244, Special Acts of 1939, states that teachers in office shall hold their office unless dismissed by the board for cause, and that a dismissed teacher shall have a right of appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. Section 904, ³ enacted as Special Act No. 499, § 270, Special Acts of 1931, empowers the superintendent of schools to appoint teachers to positions authorized by the board, and to dismiss them at his discretion. Section 904 further provides that any dismissal by the superintendent shall be final unless reversed by a majority vote of the board, and that the teacher to be dismissed is entitled to written notice from the superintendent at least one week prior to the board meeting at which the superintendent reports the dismissal. ⁴

The crux of the board's argument is that even if "dismissal" as expressed in General Statutes § 10-151(d) includes nonrenewal of a nontenured teacher's contract, dismissal for "cause" as that term is used in § 903 of the charter connotes fault on the part of the teacher, such as incompetence or misconduct, and was not intended to cover elimination of the teacher's position for budgetary reasons. The board claims to find support for this construction of § 903 in the wording of § 904, which authorizes the superintendent to appoint teachers only to authorized positions. Therefore, the board suggests, the superintendent's power to dismiss teachers must be similarly limited to dismissals from authorized positions. When an authorized position is eliminated, the...