Mauriello v. Board of Educ. of Town of West Hartford

• Decision Date: 16 January 1979
• Citation: 176 Conn. 466,408 A.2d 247
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Diane C. MAURIELLO v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the TOWN OF WEST HARTFORD.

Page 247

408 A.2d 247

176 Conn. 466

Diane C. MAURIELLO v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the TOWN OF WEST HARTFORD.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Nov. 13, 1978.

Decided Jan. 16, 1979.

Martin A. Gould, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Russell L. Post, Jr., Avon, with whom was O. Bradford Griffin, Jr., Litchfield, for appellee (defendant).

Before LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO, PETERS and SIDOR, JJ.

PETERS, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff, Diane C. Mauriello, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas under General Statutes § 10-151(f) from the termination of her employment as a physical education teacher by the defendant, the board of education of the town of West Hartford. The Court of Common Pleas, after a hearing, found the issues for the defendant. The plaintiff now appeals from the judgment dismissing her appeal.

The basic facts of the case are not seriously in dispute. The plaintiff was a tenured teacher in the West Hartford school system. On March 4, 1976, she received two letters from the superintendent of schools on behalf of the defendant. One letter gave notice of her immediate suspension, and the other gave notice that termination of her contract was under consideration. After consultation with the superintendent that same afternoon, the plaintiff on March 6, 1976, wrote to the defendant board of education requesting a private hearing "concerning the abrupt suspension from my teaching duties last Thursday." In reply to this request, the plaintiff was notified by two letters, one from the superintendent and one from the chairman of the defendant, that a hearing would be held on March 23, 1976. The chairman's letter, in addition to confirming the time and place for the hearing, stated that "termination of your contract is under consideration." The hearing was held, as scheduled, on March 23, 1976, and was continued and completed on the following evening, March 24, 1976. The plaintiff was present at the hearing, participated actively, and raised no objections to the form of the proceedings. The plaintiff was not represented by counsel, nor was she advised of her right to counsel, by the defendant or by anyone acting on its behalf. The defendant board heard considerable testimony in support of its ultimate decision to terminate the plaintiff's contract of employment on the grounds of insubordination and incompetence. The plaintiff was notified of this determination by a letter dated March 25, 1976.

The plaintiff's appeal, which challenges the fairness of her hearing before the defendant board, is governed by the Teacher Tenure Act, General Statutes § 10-151, rather than by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, General Statutes §§ 4-166 et seq. The Teacher Tenure Act describes specific rights and privileges of tenured teachers in hearings before boards of education and upon appeal to state courts. The Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, since the effective date of 1975 Public Acts, No. 75-529, excludes town and regional boards of education from the definition of "agency" in § 4-166(1). This court has nonetheless recently reaffirmed that a school board considering termination of a tenured teacher's contract acts, like an administrative agency, in a quasi-judicial capacity, and is generally obligated to afford a fair hearing. Catino v. Board of Education, 174 Conn. 414, 417, 389 A.2d 754 (1978); Miller v. Board of Education, 166 Conn. 189, 191, 348 A.2d 584 (1974); Conley v. Board of Education, 143 Conn. 488, 492, 123 A.2d 747 (1956).

The plaintiff's appeal claims that the hearing held by the defendant board was defective in a number of particulars which in their totality deprived the plaintiff of a full and fair hearing. The plaintiff maintains that she failed to receive adequate notice, that she was entitled to be advised of her right to counsel, that the evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to support termination, that the defendant failed to state its reasons in support of termination, and that the defendant improperly permitted counsel for the school administration also to act as counsel for the defendant. ¹

A number of the plaintiff's claims are readily answered by the provisions of the relevant statute, § 10-151(b). ² Under that subsection, a teacher is entitled to a written notice that contract termination is under consideration, but not to a statement of reasons for termination, unless the teacher in writing requests such a statement. It is conceded that no such request was made by the plaintiff in this case. Likewise, a teacher is entitled to a copy of the board's decision, but there is no statutory mandate that the board make findings or state the basis for its decision. Finally, there is nothing in the statute to preclude legal representation for the school administration, since the teacher also is permitted to appear with counsel. There is no evidence in this case that the attorney representing the school administration participated in any way in the defendant's deliberative processes, or that he represented the defendant in any way until the case was appealed.

The plaintiff's claim that the board lacked sufficient competent evidence on which to base its decision to terminate cannot withstand the concession in the plaintiff's own brief that there was testimony at the hearing that she had a hostile attitude, resisted criticism, and was not a competent teacher. The plaintiff was orally informed, early in the hearing, that "(t)his Administration will recommend, for reasons of incompetency and insubordination, that the contract with Miss Mauriello be terminated." The testimony before the board was consistent with the notice thus given, and amply supported its resolution that "a sufficient showing of insubordination and incompetency has been made and therefore the subject contract is terminated." The trial court so concluded and we agree.

The plaintiff asserts that the hearing process was defective because the initial notice that termination was under consideration was sent by the board chairman without formal authorization from the board. The statute, § 10-151(b), requires written notice from "a board of education" that contract termination is under consideration. The trial court found that the letter in question was written after an executive session of the board during which the question of the date for a meeting to deal with the plaintiff's suspension was discussed, but where no formal action was taken nor discussion had with respect to termination or the consideration of termination. Whether or not the chairman had implied authority to send a notice upon the advice of the superintendent of schools, the board as a whole acquiesced in and ratified the chairman's act by its participation in the two-day hearing. Since the plaintiff in fact received the required notification, she was not prejudiced by the absence of prior board authorization. Cf. Joanou v. Board of Education, 165 Conn. 671, 674, 345 A.2d 46 (1974).

The plaintiff urges finally that the proceedings in her case, taken as a totality, were lacking in fundamental fairness. We are of course mindful of the fact that a tenured teacher is entitled to a full and fair hearing, to an effective and meaningful opportunity to hear and to be heard, on so significant an issue as termination for cause. Catino v. Board of Education, supra. The most serious challenge to the proceedings below arises out of the defendant's failure to advise the plaintiff of her right...