Skinner v. Angliker

• Decision Date: 30 May 1989
• Docket Number: No. 13504,13504
• Citation: 211 Conn. 370,559 A.2d 701
• Parties: John M. SKINNER v. Colin ANGLIKER, Director of Whiting Forensic Institute, et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Page 701

559 A.2d 701

211 Conn. 370

John M. SKINNER v. Colin ANGLIKER, Director of Whiting Forensic Institute, et al.

No. 13504.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 7, 1989.

Decided May 30, 1989.

Igor I. Sikorsky, Jr., Rocky Hill, with whom, on the brief, was Robert Skelton, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

William J. McCullough, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, were Clarine Nardi Riddle, Acting Atty. Gen., Joseph I. Lieberman, Former Atty. Gen., and Charles A. Overend, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees (defendants).

Elizabeth A. Gallagher and William F. Gallagher, New Haven, filed a brief for the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Ass'n as amicus curiae.

Before PETERS, C.J., and SHEA, CALLAHAN, GLASS and COVELLO, JJ.

CALLAHAN, Associate Justice.

Certification was granted in this case limited to the question: "Did the Appellate Court err in deciding that a discharged employee who initiated an action under Connecticut General Statutes Section 31-51q was not entitled to a trial by jury?" Skinner v. Angliker, 209 Conn. 807, 548 A.2d 438 (1988). We affirm the judgement of the Appellate Court.

The facts relevant to this appeal have been set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Court; Skinner v. Angliker, 15 Conn.App. 297, 544 A.2d 246 (1988); but can be briefly summarized as follows. Shortly after being employed by the department of mental health as a forensic treatment specialist in 1983, the plaintiff allegedly witnessed numerous incidents of verbal and physical abuse of patients by some of the staff members at Whiting Forensic Institute. On October 21, 1983, the plaintiff was discharged after making several complaints regarding that abuse to his supervisors and officials at Whiting. The plaintiff secured employment at another institution soon thereafter.

In January, 1984, the plaintiff ¹ filed a complaint in the Superior Court against the defendants, Colin Angliker, the director of the Whiting Forensic Institute, and Audrey M. Worrell, the commissioner of the state department of mental health, in their official capacities, alleging that they had discharged him because he had exercised his first amendment rights and that the defendants' actions were in violation of General Statutes § 31-51q. ² The plaintiff claimed the case for the jury docket, and the defendants subsequently filed a motion to strike, pursuant to Practice Book § 282, ³ arguing that there was no right to a jury trial under § 31-51q. The trial court denied the defendants' motion and a jury trial commenced on July 22, 1986. ⁴ The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff awarding him $9000 for present and future loss of earnings, $1 for emotional distress and $26,752.50 for punitive damages. The plaintiff was also awarded $3000 by the trial court for attorney's fees and costs.

On September 30, 1986, the defendants appealed the judgment to the Appellate Court, arguing, in relevant part, that the trial court erred in denying their motion to strike the case from the jury docket. Specifically, the defendants maintained that the plaintiff did not have a right to a jury trial in an action brought against the state pursuant to § 31-51q. ⁵

Addressing the defendants' claim of error, the Appellate Court correctly set forth the standards used to determine whether a party is entitled to a trial by jury. "The constitution of Connecticut, article first, § 19, states that '[t]he right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.' This particular provision of our constitution has been consistently construed by Connecticut courts to mean that if there was a right to a trial by jury at the time of the adoption of the provision, then that right remains intact. See, e.g., Swanson v. Boschen, 143 Conn. 159, 165, 120 A.2d 546 (1959) ... State v. Mention, 12 Conn.App. 258, 263, 530 A.2d 645 (1987); State v. Weisser, 9 Conn.App. 255, 257, 518 A.2d 655 (1986), cert. denied, 202 Conn. 803, 519 A.2d 1207 (1987)." Skinner v. Angliker, supra, 15 Conn.App. at 302, 544 A.2d 246; see also United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Spring Brook Dairy, Inc., 135 Conn. 294, 297, 64 A.2d 39 (1949). It is generally held that the right to a jury trial "exists not only in cases in which it existed at common law and at the time of the adoption of constitutional provisions preserving it, but also exists in cases substantially similiar thereto...." 47 Am.Jur.2d, Jury § 17; Swanson v. Boschen, supra. At common law, "legal claims [were] tried by a jury, [and] equitable claims [were] tried by a court...." Miles v. Strong, 68 Conn. 273, 286, 36 A. 55 (1896); Dawson v. Orange, 78 Conn. 96, 100, 61 A. 101 (1905). Equitable actions, therefore, are not within the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury. Franchi v. Farmholme, Inc., 191 Conn. 201, 210, 464 A.2d 35 (1983); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Spring Brook Dairy, Inc., supra.

Moreover, General Statutes § 52-215, ⁶ provides that as a matter of right "civil actions involving such an issue of fact as, prior to January 1, 1880, would not present a question properly cognizable in equity" should be entered on the docket as jury cases upon proper request. Section 52-215 goes on to state that certain enumerated actions and "all other special statutory proceedings, which, prior to January 1, 1880, were not triable by jury," shall be tried to the court without a jury. The right that the plaintiff seeks to enforce is statutory and was legislatively created in 1983. In Swanson v. Boschen, supra, 143 Conn. 164-65, 120 A.2d 546, we stated, however, that the term " 'special statutory proceedings' cannot be construed, under the constitutional provisions guaranteeing jury trials, to mean any cause of action whatsoever, simply because it is authorized by an enactment of the legislature. If it could, the legislature, by the process of giving legislative sanction to common-law causes of action, could, in the course of time, obviate the guarantee of jury trial completely.... The test is whether the issue raised in the action is substantially of the same nature or is such an issue as prior to 1818 would have been triable to a jury." See also United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v Spring Brook Dairy, Inc., supra, 135 Conn. at 297, 64 A.2d 39.

Accordingly, in determining whether a party has a right to a trial by jury under the state constitution and § 52-215, the court must ascertain whether the action being tried is similar in nature to an action that could have been tried to a jury in 1818 when the state constitution was adopted. This test requires an inquiry as to whether the course of action has roots in the common law, and if so, whether the remedy involved was one in law or equity. If the action existed at common law and involved a legal remedy, the right to a jury trial exists and the legislature may not curtail that right either directly or indirectly. Franchi v. Farmholme, Inc., supra; Swanson v. Boschen, supra; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Spring Brook Dairy, Inc., supra; Windham Community Memorial Hospital v. Windham, 32 Conn.Sup. 271, 273, 350 A.2d 785 (1975).

Applying this test, the Appellate Court, stated that "it is clear that [the plaintiff's] cause of action, if it existed at all prior to 1818, would have been barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity," and, therefore, concluded that the trial court erred in denying the defendants' motion to strike the case from the jury docket. Skinner v. Angliker, supra, 15 Conn.App. at 304, 544 A.2d 246. We agree. ⁷

In discussing the doctrine of sovereign immunity, this court has stated that " 'because the state can act only through its officers and agents, a suit against a state officer concerning a matter in which the officer represents the state is, in effect, against the state.' Sentner v. Board of Trustees, 184 Conn. 339, 342, 439 A.2d 1033 (1981). In its pristine form the doctrine of sovereign immunity would exempt the state from suit entirely, because the sovereign could not be sued in its own courts and 'there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.' Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S.Ct. 526 , 51 L.Ed. 834 (1907); Bergner v. State, 144 Conn. 282, 284-85, 130 A.2d 293 (1957)." Doe v. Heintz, 204 Conn. 17, 31, 526 A.2d 1318 (1987); Fetterman v. University of Connecticut, 192 Conn. 539, 550-51, 473 A.2d 1176 (1984). Although the "absolute bar of actions against the state has been greatly modified both by statutes effectively consenting to suit in some instances as well as by judicial decisions in others"; Doe v. Heintz, supra, 204 Conn. at 31, 526 A.2d 1318; it was not until the enactment of § 31-51q in 1983 that this bar was removed in suits against the state for wrongful discharge due to an employee's exercise of his or her first amendment rights. No principle of common law, prior to 1818, allowed actions against the state for wrongful discharge or related claims. Such actions, with or without a jury, simply did not exist against the state in 1818. In fact, the plaintiff conceded at oral argument that his claim would have been barred by sovereign immunity before 1818.

We are not implying that the right to a jury trial does not exist in any cause of action that was not specifically recognized at common law in 1818. "The historical test we apply is flexible and may require a jury in a new cause of action, not in existence in [1818], if it involves rights and remedies of the sort traditionally enforced in an action at law or if its nearest historical analogue is an action at common law." Goar v. Compania Peruana de Vapores 88 F.2d 417, 427 (5th Cir.1982); Swanson v. Boschen, supra. But this flexible approach does not mandate a jury in this case. "The cases that have required jury trials for new causes of action have involved legislative enhancement or creation of rights and duties in circumstances where the common law enforced similiar rights and duties. See Pernell...