132 Conn. App. 668
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Barry, formerly personnel manager in New Britain, was terminated due to budget cuts and the district’s reorganization after a 2001 settlement and an accompanying employment contract.
- A 2004 budget reduction eliminated Barry’s position; he received written notice of termination on June 21, 2004 and a subsequent termination review upheld the decision.
- The district’s human resources department was reorganized and Barry’s position was not refilled; a later permanent director was hired not from the original applicant pool.
- Barry filed a second federal action in 2005 alleging ADEA discrimination/retaliation and breach of contract; the District Court granted summary judgment in 2006 and the Second Circuit affirmed in 2008.
- Barry then filed this state court action in 2007 claiming breach of the settlement agreement and breach of the employment contract; the trial court granted summary judgment based on collateral estoppel and related doctrines.
- The issue on appeal is whether collateral estoppel bars Barry’s state claims, given the federal disposition relied upon by the district court and the Second Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does collateral estoppel bar the state claims? | Barry contends estoppel does not apply. | Board argues identical issues were actually litigated and decided. | Yes; collateral estoppel bars. |
| Are the issues identical between federal and state proceedings? | Issues were not identical because federal dismissal without prejudice left facts unsettled. | Second Circuit and District Court relied on same underlying facts and theory. | Identical; collateral estoppel applies. |
| Did the Second Circuit rely on findings of pretext to affirm the District Court, supporting estoppel? | Second Circuit’s affirmation did not hinge on the pretext finding for estoppel. | Second Circuit relied on pretext findings, supporting estoppel. | Yes; pretext findings were relied on, supporting estoppel. |
| Is res judicata applicable to bar the state claims? | Res judicata should not apply because federal dismissal was without prejudice. | Res judicata would apply where there is a prior merits judgment. | Not applicable; res judicata does not bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Commissioner of Correction, 100 Conn.App. 94 (2007) (identity of issues and collateral estoppel considerations)
- Connecticut National Bank v. Rytman, 241 Conn. 24 (1997) (collateral estoppel standard and issue identity)
- Upjohn Co. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 224 Conn. 82 (1992) (practice of reviewing collateral estoppel with respect to prior findings)
- Milford v. Andresakis, 52 Conn. App. 454 (1999) (affects of collateral estoppel in state court)
- Lyon v. Jones, 291 Conn. 384 (2009) (precedential treatment of collateral estoppel)