Cox v. Aiken, No. 17399.
Decision Date | 16 May 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 17399. |
Citation | 278 Conn. 204,897 A.2d 71 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Daniel K. COX v. Elizabeth AIKEN et al. |
Thomas P. Clifford III, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and William J. McCullough, assistant attorney general, for the appellants (defendants).
BORDEN, NORCOTT, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE and ZARELLA, Js.
In this appeal, we consider whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes a state employee from bringing an action against the officials who allegedly laid him off from his employment in the classified service in violation of the seniority restrictions set forth in General Statutes § 5-241.1 The defendants, the department of social services (department), and Elizabeth Aiken, the department's assistant director of human resources, appeal, following our grant of their petition for certification,2 from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss this action brought by the pro se plaintiff, Daniel K. Cox.3 See Cox v. Aiken, 86 Conn.App. 587, 596, 862 A.2d 319 (2004). We conclude that the plaintiff's claims that he was laid off in violation of § 5-241 are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity because the defendants acted in accordance with legislatively approved collective bargaining agreement provisions that superseded that statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court opinion sets forth the following facts and procedural history. "The pro se plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that in January, 2003, he received a letter from Aiken, notifying him that he was to be laid off from his position as a social services investigator with the department. According to the plaintiff, the notice specified that he was being laid off pursuant to the terms of the union contract4 that he had no `bumping'5 options and that there was no person in the same job class with less state time than he had who was to be retained. The plaintiff alleged that his layoff violated § 5-241 and that neither his layoff notice nor the union contract conformed to § 5-241. According to the plaintiff, the union contract provides that layoffs are to be based on seniority. The contract, however, exempts union stewards from layoff, and the state statute contains no exemption for union stewards. The plaintiff alleged that he was laid off while a person with less time in the same position [ a position as a union steward]6 was not laid off. The plaintiff maintained that according to § 5-241, in the event of a layoff, he had the right to the following options: (1) transfer to the same job class, (2) transfer to a comparable job class or (3) transfer to a position for which he was qualified in any department, agency or institution. The plaintiff sought, inter alia, reinstatement to his position as a social services investigator with full back pay, seniority and benefits.
7 8 9 Id., at 589-91, 862 A.2d 319.
On appeal, the Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiff's complaint overcame the defendants' sovereign immunity because it alleged statutory violations that, "if proven, would be sufficient to establish that the defendants acted in excess of the authority vested in them by § 5-241." Id., at 594, 862 A.2d 319. For substantially the same reasons, the Appellate Court then rejected the defendants' claim that the plaintiff was required to obtain the permission of the claims commissioner pursuant to General Statutes § 4-141 et seq., prior to bringing this action for injunctive relief.10 Id., at 594-95, 862 A.2d 319. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and this certified appeal followed.
On appeal to this court, the defendants raise a number of interrelated arguments involving the courts' subject matter jurisdiction over this case. With respect to sovereign immunity, the defendants claim that satisfying the injunctive relief exception to sovereign immunity, in which a state official acted "in excess of statutory authority," requires the plaintiff to do more than just allege the violation of a statute by a state official. The defendants also claim that the plaintiff lacks standing to enforce a statutory claim pursuant to § 5-241 because that particular statute has been superseded by the legislature's approval of conflicting provisions contained in the relevant collective bargaining agreement. Thus, they contend that, under the State Employee Relations Act, or Collective Bargaining for State Employees, General Statutes § 5-270 et seq., the courts lack jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims because he failed to exhaust his exclusive remedy under that agreement, namely arbitration, with any waiver of sovereign immunity being limited to judicial review of the arbitration award. We do not find any one of these discrete arguments dispositive, but facets of each inform our resolution of this appeal.
We begin with the proper standard of review. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Filippi v. Sullivan, 273 Conn. 1, 8, 866 A.2d 599 (2005).
"We have held that a plaintiff seeking to circumvent the doctrine of sovereign immunity must show that: (1) the legislature, either expressly or by force of a necessary implication, statutorily waived the state's sovereign immunity11 ... or (2) in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief, the state officer or officers against whom such relief is sought acted in excess of statutory authority, or pursuant to an unconstitutional statute." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301, 313-14, 828 A.2d 549 (2003).
Our inquiry in this case is limited to the second exception to sovereign immunity, which does not apply "to claims against the state for monetary damages." Id., at 315, 828 A.2d 549. Rather, "when a process of statutory interpretation establishes that the state officials acted beyond their authority, sovereign immunity does not bar an action seeking declaratory or injunctive relief."12 Id., at 327, 828 A.2d 549.
The Appellate Court reviewed the facts pleaded in the plaintiff's complaint and the plain language of § 5-241, stating...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Graham v. Comm'r of Transp., SC 19867
-
Fennelly v. Norton
...and invokes any record that accompanies the motion, including supporting affidavits that contain undisputed facts"); Cox v. Aiken, 278 Conn. 204, 211, 897 A.2d 71 (2006) ("[w]hen a . . . court decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss, it must consider the all......
-
Morgan v. Bubar
...of sovereign immunity, their exhaustion claim did not constitute appealable interlocutory ruling), rev'd on other grounds, 278 Conn. 204, 897 A.2d 71 (2006). 4. This administrative directive explicitly incorporates under "Authority and Reference" administrative directive 2.1, which outlines......
-
Stotler v. Dep't of Transp.
...records of department of children and families); and/or public records of which judicial notice may be taken; Cox v. Aiken, [278 Conn. 204, 217, 897 A.2d 71 (2006) ] (state employees' collective bargaining agreement); the trial court, in determining the jurisdictional issue, may consider th......
-
2006 Survey of Developments in Civil Litigation
...278 Conn. 291, 898 A.2d 768 (2006). The Court further discussed when to vacate a lower court judgment when an action becomes moot. 16. 278 Conn. 204, 897 A.2d 71(2006). 17. 279 Conn. 162, 900 A.2d 1256 (2006). 18. 280 Conn. 25, 905 A.2d 647 (2006). 19. 278 Conn. 557, 898 A.2d 178 (2006). 20......
-
Significant 2006 Employment Law Decisions
...Cal.2d 92, 98-101, 383 P.2d 441, 32 Cal.Rptr. 33 (1963). 55. 280 Conn. at 503. 56. Id. 57. Id. at 504. 58. Id, at 505. 59. 278 Conn. 205, 897 A.2d 71 (2006). 60. Section 5-24 1 grants to employees "in the classified service who have been performing satisfactorily protection from dismissal o......