Awdziewicz v. Meriden, 317 Conn. 122

Background

Plaintiffs are retired Meriden police officers and firefighters who retired by 1998 and receive pensions governed by § 85D of a prior Meriden charter and a 1982 stipulated judgment augmenting § 85D (including health insurance emoluments).
The 1982 stipulated judgment entitles retirees to participate in the same group health plans offered to active officers or to receive equivalent cash; it ties retiree benefits to the provisions of § 85D.
In collective bargaining agreements effective July 1, 2002, the city required active police and fire personnel to pay a percentage ‘‘cost share’’ of health insurance premiums.
In 2005 the city began imposing the same cost share requirement on retirees, effectively reducing their health insurance emoluments; plaintiffs sued in 2007 seeking mandamus, contract and constitutional relief, and damages under § 1983.
The trial court found § 85D and the stipulated judgment index retiree health emoluments to active employee benefits and therefore allowed the city to apply the cost share to retirees; the court excluded evidence about other CBAs and declined to address a post‑trial statutory claim under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-450c because it was not pleaded.
The Supreme Court affirmed: it held the charter provision and stipulated judgment permitted the cost share; excluded the CBA evidence as irrelevant; and rejected the unpled statutory claim and related procedural arguments.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 85D and the 1982 stipulated judgment permit the city to impose the active employees’ CBA cost share on retirees	§ 85D and the stipulate do not expressly allow a retiree cost share; retirees didn’t bargain and thus cannot be subject to post‑retirement reductions	§ 85D and the stipulated judgment tie retiree emoluments to the pay and emoluments of active members, so retirees take the same cost‑share adjustments	Court: The instruments plainly index retiree health emoluments to active employee benefits; city may impose the cost share on retirees
Whether imposing the cost share violated plaintiffs’ federal due process and equal protection rights	City’s action violated plaintiffs’ protected retirement contract and constitutional rights	No statutory or contract violation occurred; therefore no federal constitutional violation	Court: Because no violation of § 85D or the stipulated judgment occurred, federal constitutional claims fail
Whether proffered evidence of additional benefits in 2002 CBAs was admissible/relevant	Evidence shows selective application: city applied cost share without giving retirees other negotiated benefits, supporting their breach claims	Parties stipulated that active employees paid a cost share; other CBA benefits were irrelevant to whether § 85D/stipulated judgment permitted the cost share	Court: Exclusion proper — additional CBA details were irrelevant to the pleaded claim about whether instruments permitted the cost share
Whether the trial court should have taken judicial notice of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-450c despite it not being pled	Court must take judicial notice of state law; plaintiffs can rely on § 7-450c even if raised posttrial	Practice Book § 10‑3(a) requires statutory claims to be pleaded; defendant was not put on notice and could not defend	Court: Plaintiffs failed to plead § 7-450c; judicial notice does not cure pleading defects; claim was properly not considered

Key Cases Cited

Rocque v. Northeast Utilities Service Co., 254 Conn. 78 (contract interpretation principles for stipulated judgments)
Broadnax v. New Haven, 270 Conn. 133 (statutory construction rules apply to city charters)
Ahmadi v. Ahmadi, 294 Conn. 384 (contract construction; ordinary meaning governs)
Chief Information Officer v. Computers Plus Center, Inc., 310 Conn. 60 (trial court’s discretion on relevance reviewed deferentially)
State v. Bonner, 290 Conn. 468 (definition of relevance under Connecticut Evidence Code)
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Canaan Oil Co., 202 Conn. 234 (judicial notice does not substitute for proper pleading)
Mazurek v. Great American Ins. Co., 284 Conn. 16 (Practice Book § 10‑3(a) pleading requirement is directory; defendant must be apprised)
White v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 313 Conn. 610 (plaintiff is limited to allegations in complaint)