Mattera v. Bridgeport Civil Service Commission, No. CV03 040 25 85 S (Conn. Super. 3/23/2004)

Decision Date23 March 2004
Docket NumberNo. CV03 040 25 85 S,CV03 040 25 85 S
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
PartiesCindy Mattera et al. v. Civil Service Commission, City of Bridgeport
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

DEWEY, JUDGE.

In this action the plaintiffs, Bridgeport firefighters seek to enforce certain civil service provisions of the Bridgeport City Charter. In particular the plaintiffs allege that they have "held a position for one year or more" and, therefore, are eligible to test for promotion to a higher grade. The defendants contend that existing civil service rules, in particular time in grade requirements, preclude the relief that plaintiffs request. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that any individual with one-year tenure would be eligible for departmental promotional examinations. Additionally the plaintiffs requested that the court enjoin the defendant civil service commission from requiring a three-year time in grade tenure as a prerequisite for promotional examinations.

The parties requested relief in the form of a declaratory judgment. Consequently the court ordered notice to any persons whose rights might be affected by such a declaration. Practice Book (Rev. 2000) 17-56(b). "This rule is not merely a procedural regulation. It is in recognition and implementation of the basic principle that due process of law requires that the rights of no man shall be judicially determined without affording him a day in court and an opportunity to be heard." Benz v. Walker, 154 Conn. 74, 77, 221 A.2d 841 (1966). This court finds that notice was adequate.

This declaratory judgment may be maintained if the following conditions have been met:

The party seeking the declaratory judgment has an interest, legal or equitable, by reason of danger of loss or of uncertainty as to the party's rights or other jural relations; (2) There is an actual bona fide and substantial question or issue in dispute or substantial uncertainty of legal relations which requires settlement between the parties; and (3) In the event that there is another form of proceeding that can provide the party seeking the declaratory judgment immediate redress, the court is of the opinion that such party should be allowed to proceed with the claim for declaratory judgment despite the existence of such alternate procedure. Practice Book §17-55.

Here plaintiffs have an actual interest in the outcome of these proceedings. Their ability to apply for a promotion is contingent on a ruling that the defendants have improperly construed the relevant civil service regulations. Because the claims involve allegations that the defendants have violated the state and local laws, the court finds that "[t]here is an actual bona fide and substantial question or issue in dispute or substantial uncertainty of legal relations which requires settlement between the parties" in regard to the claim, and, this is the most efficacious forum for the determination of the issues. Consequently, the second and third prongs of the test as to whether a declaratory judgment should be granted have been met.

I. Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs are all firefighters with the City of Bridgeport All have been employed for more than one year. The governing structure of the City of Bridgeport has the mayor as the executive and the Board of Alderman as the legislative and appropriating body. The City has a charter that establishes a civil service system.1

The defendant civil service commission governs the administration of the city's civil service system. Those duties include the preparation and administration of competitive promotional examinations.

The aforementioned city charter and certain ordinances make provisions for the proper procedure for seeking new positions or transfers within a city department. In particular, §9 of the Bridgeport charter provides:

The personnel director shall, from time to time, as conditions warrant, hold tests for the purpose of establishing employment lists for the various positions in the competitive division of the classified service. Such tests shall be public, competitive and open to all persons who may be lawfully appointed to any position within the class for which such examinations are held with limitations specified in the rules of the commissions as to residence, age, health, habits, moral character and prerequisite qualifications to perform the duties of such position . . . Promotion tests shall be public, competitive and free only to all persons . . . who have held a position for one year or more in a class or rank previously declared by the commission to involve the performance of duties which tend to fit the incumbent for the performance of duty in the class or rank for which the promotion test is held . . . If fewer than two persons submit themselves for a promotion test or if, after such test has been held, all applicants shall fail to attain a general average of not less than the minimum standard fixed by the rules of the commission, said director forthwith hold an original entrance test and certify from the employment list resulting therefrom . . . The commission shall cancel such portion of any list as has been in force for more than two years . . .

The rules of the defendant civil service commission offer further guidance. Chapter 17 §211 provides in relevant part:

The personnel director shall . . . hold tests for the purpose of establishing employment lists for the various positions in the competitive division of the classified service . . . Promotion tests shall be public, competitive and free only to all persons . . . who have held a position for one year or more in a class or rank previously declared by the commission to involve the performance of duties which tend to fit the incumbent for the performance of duty in the class or rank for which the promotion test is held . . . A person who has served less than one year in a lower grade shall not be eligible for a promotion test.

By notice dated March 21, 2003 the City announced that it would offer an examination for the position of pump engineer. The notice provided in relevant part "This examination is open to Firefighters who have been employed by the City of Bridgeport, who meet the following requirements: three years of satisfactory experience as a City of Bridgeport Firefighter as of February 17, 2002."

The plaintiffs Mattera, Hernandez and Morgan made a timely application to take the pumpers' examination. On May 3, 2003 all were notified that they failed to meet the experience requirement as set forth in the March 2003 announcement. All three appealed this determination to the defendant civil service commission. On May 8, 2003 the defendant denied all appeals.

By notice dated September 3, 2003 the City announced that it would offer an examination for the position of fire assistant chief. The notice provided in relevant part "This examination is open to members of the Bridgeport Fire Department, who have occupied with tenure, a position of Fire Captain, for not less than three years preceding December 7, 1997 (Must have been a Fire Captain on or before December 7, 1994)."

The plaintiffs Bridgeport Fire Captains Firpi, Fossesiguroni, Pittman and Pomales made a timely application to take the fire assistant captain examination. On September 30, 2003 all were notified that they failed to meet the experience requirement as set forth in the September 3, 2003 announcement. All three appealed this determination to the defendant civil service commission. On October 7, 2003 the defendant denied all appeals.

By notice dated September 5, 2003 the City announced that it would offer an examination for the position of fire captain. The notice provided that the examination was open to members of the department, who have occupied with tenure a position of fire lieutenant for not less than three years preceding December 10, 2000.

Each of the Plaintiffs has held a position for one year or more but not for the three (3) years in a class or rank previously declared by the Commission to involve the performance of duties in a class or rank for which the promotion test was held. Stipulation of Facts, Paragraphs 18, 23.

Since at least 1939, a year of major civil service reform, a three-year time in grade has been required to take the promotional examination for pumper engineer, fire assistant chief and fire captain. In 1958, after the adoption of the "Griffenhauger Report" by the defendant civil service commission, that same three-year time in grade was again recognized as an eligibility requirement for pumper engineer, fire assistant chief and fire captain examinations.

There have been exceptions to the three-year time in grade requirement, most notably in 1989 and 1991. In both, the defendant City of Bridgeport and the local firefighters union agreed to the change in the time in grade requirement. Finally in 1999, as part of a settlement in the matter of International Association of Firefighters Local 834 v. Bridgeport Civil Service Commission (CV97-0342821) the defendant city and the firefighters union purportedly entered into an agreement wherein they altered the time in grade requirements for various positions. That settlement agreement was declared null and void in Wallace Thomas v. City of Bridgeport et al. (CV 99 3618115).

II. Legal Analysis

The present controversy is the latest in a long history of proceedings involving the City of Bridgeport and its civil servants. In each case, the litigants have challenged the defendant's authority to promulgate regulations.

The need for the defendant's civil service guidelines is apparent. As early as 1942 our Supreme Court evaluated the defendant civil service commission. Emphasizing the need for civil service regulation, the Court noted, "Soon after the formation of political parties in this country, the maxim "To the victor belong the spoils" became current...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT