Festa v. Bd. of Educ. of E. Haven
| Citation | 145 Conn.App. 103,73 A.3d 904 |
| Decision Date | 20 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 34923.,34923. |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Marci FESTA v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the TOWN OF EAST HAVEN. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jason R. Stanevich, Milford, with whom, on the brief, was Lori B. Alexander, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant).
John R. Williams, for the appellee (plaintiff).
ROBINSON, ALVORD and BISHOP, Js.
The defendant, the Board of Education for the Town of East Haven (board), appeals from the judgment of the trial court remanding the board's decision to terminate the employment contract of the plaintiff, Marci Festa, for further proceedings pending an independent medical evaluation of the plaintiff. The board claims that the trial court erred by (1) not affirming the board's decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment for insubordination,and/or other due and sufficient cause pursuant to the Teacher Tenure Act, General Statutes § 10–151, because the court improperly considered the issue of discrimination,1 and (2) finding that the board violated the Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a–60, by terminating the plaintiff's employment before conducting an independent medical evaluation of the plaintiff.2 We reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following facts and procedural history relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff, a tenured teacher, began her employment as an elementary school teacher with the East Haven Public Schools in August, 1996, and is certified to teach kindergarten through sixth grade. She taught third grade until the board transferred her to a kindergarten position for the 2006–2007 school year.
In August, 2006, the plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident. She did not take any leave from work and was able to continue her employment as a kindergarten teacher. In June, 2008, several teachers filed complaints against the plaintiff alleging that she had made inappropriate comments, which, upon investigation, the board found to have merit. The plaintiff, however, was involved in a second automobile accident before the board issued a disciplinary decision. Due to the injuries sustained from the second accident, the plaintiff remained out of work from October, 2008, until May, 2009.
Shortly after the start of the 2009–2010 school year, the board received complaints that the plaintiff again had made inappropriate comments to parents and to staff. She was suspended pending an investigation and was also suspended for five days because of the June, 2008 complaints. The plaintiff's attorney suggested her behavior was the result of injuries she suffered from the two automobile accidents, and the board agreed to send the plaintiff for an independent medical examination conducted by Adam Mednick, a neurologist.
Mednick concluded that the plaintiff had a traumatic brain injury due to the two automobile accidents and that a combination of the plaintiff's traumatic brain injury and the medication she was taking for pain were the likely cause of the plaintiff's inappropriate comments. Mednick's report did not discuss whether the plaintiff's abilities were limited or comment on her teaching capabilities, as those issues were not within the scope of the examination. Upon review of the report, the board decided to reinstate the plaintiff.
Between the 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 school years, the board conducted unprecedented restructuring of the school district, closing two schools and restructuring the remaining elementary schools. As a result, approximately fifty percent of the teachers experienced a change in assignment. The plaintiff was one of these teachers. By letter dated July 27, 2010, Superintendent Anthony Serio informed the plaintiff that she was being transferred to teach third grade at East Haven Academy.
On August 17, 2010, the plaintiff met with Serio and Assistant Superintendent Erica Forti to discuss her reinstatement and her new position teaching third grade. At that meeting, the plaintiff discussed her concerns about teaching third grade in light of her traumatic brain injury and requested a transfer back to a kindergarten classroom. She also presented Serio with a letter from her physician, Mark Thimineur, dated August 16, 2010. Thimineur's letter stated that although the plaintiff was capable of teaching kindergarten, in his opinion, she was incapable of teaching third grade because she struggled with “certain cognitive difficulties” and therefore, she would “not be able to handle adequately the complexities of a third grade level teaching responsibility.” Serio declined to change the plaintiff's assignment, stating that he was unaware of any factual basis upon which Thimineur could base his opinion since, to his knowledge, he never contacted the board to determine the difference in skill set needed to teach the two grades. Furthermore, Serio stated that there was no difference in the skills and abilities required to teach the two grades and therefore, he believed that assigning the plaintiff to a third grade classroom was in the best interest of her, the students, and the school district.
Serio reaffirmed his decision and reasoning not to transfer the plaintiff's teaching assignment in a letter to the plaintiff dated August 20, 2010. He offered to discuss any accommodations the plaintiff might need in her new position and stated that he expected the plaintiff to start the school year as scheduled. The plaintiff's lawyer responded and requested on his client's behalf that the board transfer the plaintiff to a kindergarten position as a reasonable accommodation of her disability. Serio again refused to authorize the transfer, but invited the plaintiff to speak with him about any accommodations necessary for her third grade position. On September 1, 2010, the plaintiff did not appear for the first day of work for teachers in the East Haven Public Schools. She did not alert the board that she would be absent, nor did she file a grievance concerning her third grade position with the teacher's union. Because of her absence, other teachers unpacked and prepared her classroom for the students who would begin school the following week. The board also made last minute position transfers and hired another teacher to cover the plaintiff's position. Because of her failure to appear on the first day of work, Serio wrote the plaintiff a letter informing her that he believed she had abandoned her position and, thus, resigned. Thereafter, the board terminated her salary and benefits.
The plaintiff filed a civil action in the Superior Court, alleging that her employment was terminated in violation of the Teacher Tenure Act 3 because the board did not hold a hearing to determine if there was cause under the statute to justify that termination. As part of a settlement agreement, the board agreed to reinstate the plaintiff and to initiate an administrative hearing pursuant to § 10–151. By letter dated November 23, 2010, the board informed the plaintiff that her employment contract was under consideration for termination. The plaintiff responded, seeking a statement of the reasons why the board was considering terminating her employment contract. The plaintiff was provided with a statement of reasons that cited job abandonment, insubordination, and other due and sufficient cause as grounds for her termination. She then requested a hearing.
After three days of proceedings, the impartial hearing panel (panel) concluded that the plaintiff was insubordinate and that other due and sufficient cause existed to support the plaintiff's termination. The panel unanimously recommended that the board terminate the plaintiff's employment for insubordination and other due and sufficient cause. On May 25, 2011, the board informed the plaintiff that the board had adopted the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations of the panel, and, accordingly, terminated the plaintiff's employment contract.
On May 31, 2011, the plaintiff filed the present action in the Superior Court, pursuant to the Teacher Tenure Act, appealing from the board's decision to terminate her employment. In a memorandum of decision dated July 26, 2012, the court held that the board violated the plaintiff's rights under the Fair Employment Practices Act by not conducting an independent medical evaluation of the plaintiff before terminating her employment. It found that the evidence presented to the panel supported a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of the board's failure to order further testing of the plaintiff before denying her request to teach kindergarten. Thus, the court found that a credible argument had been made that the plaintiff's mental disability claim was, in effect, ignored by the board, and therefore, remanded the case back to the board for further proceedings pending an independent medical evaluation of the plaintiff. Because of this ruling, the court did not determine whether the panel's factual findings supported its legal conclusions that the plaintiff's employment properly was terminated for insubordination and other due and sufficient cause. This appeal followed.
We begin by setting forth the standard of review and other legal principles pertinent to this appeal. Pursuant to the Teacher Tenure Act, a court reviewing an appeal from the decision of the board “may affirm or reverse the decision appealed from in accordance with subsection (j) of section 4–183.” General Statutes § 10–151(e). General Statutes § 4–183(j) provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kovachich v. Dep't of Mental Health & Addiction Servs.
...party holds information the other does not have or cannot easily obtain." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Festa v. Board of Education , 145 Conn. App. 103, 115, 73 A.3d 904, cert. denied, 310 Conn. 934, 79 A.3d 888 (2013). The employee bears the burden of initiating the interactive proc......
-
Town of Windsor v. Loureiro Eng'g Assocs.
... ... 9 This court, in R.A. Civitello Co. v. New Haven , 6 Conn. App. 212, 227, 504 A.2d 542 (1986), concluded that General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) ... ...
-
Girard v. Lincoln Coll. of New Eng., 3:12–cv–00703 MPS.
...has, whether any accommodations will be granted, and if so, what accommodations are reasonable. See, e.g., Festa v. Bd. of Ed., 145 Conn.App. 103, 115, 73 A.3d 904 (2013). But here, the record indicates that the parties did engage in such an interactive process, and that, as a result of tha......
-
City of Meriden v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of the Town of Wallingford
...Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 216 Conn. 627, 639, 583 A.2d 906 (1990)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Festa v. Board of Education, 145 Conn. App. 103, 120, A.3d (2013). As discussed later in this opinion, we conclude that the defendant's denial of the special permit was supp......