128 Conn. App. 646
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Rodriguez-Davila began work for Hartford in 1999 in the Office of Human Relations, later in Economic Development, with a last chance agreement after a 2006 anger-related incident.
- In February 2006 Rodriguez-Davila allegedly threw a memorandum and verbally threatened a director, leading to his first suspension and participation in anger management as part of the last chance agreement.
- On July 2, 2007, Rodriguez-Davila allegedly spoke loudly at a meeting, pounded the table, and was asked to leave, after which supervisors recommended termination for conduct in that meeting.
- Hartford terminated Rodriguez-Davila on December 27, 2007 citing the workplace violence policy and his prior suspension.
- The union filed a grievance on January 7, 2008; arbitration occurred June 3 and June 30, 2008, where Bowman’s second violation evidence was excluded by the panel.
- The arbitration award denying the grievance was issued February 9, 2009; Hartford moved to vacate under §52-418, and the trial court vacated on June 25, 2009, remanding for a new hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the arbitrator's exclusion of Bowman's second violation evidence deny a full and fair hearing? | Rodriguez-Davila was prejudiced by exclusion of relevant, material evidence. | Exclusion was reasonable; evidence was not central and not likely to change outcome. | No substantial prejudice; not a reversible error. |
| Was the ruling to exclude Bowman's second violation evidence procedurally improper under §52-418(a)(3)? | Exclusion constitutes misconduct depriving rights to a fair hearing. | Panel acted within discretion; evidence was cumulative/irrelevant to the termination issue. | Exclusion did not constitute grounds to vacate the award. |
| Did the panel's reasoning and evidence support just cause for termination notwithstanding the excluded evidence? | Zero tolerance/disparate treatment influenced the result and remedy. | Just cause found based on coworkers' safety concerns and Rodriguez-Davila's conduct; Bowman evidence not decisive. | Panel's decision supported just cause; exclusion did not alter result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridgeport v. Kasper Group, Inc., 278 Conn. 466, 899 A.2d 523 (2006) (relevance of evidentiary rulings; full and fair hearing; disparate evidence considerations)
- Krassner v. Ansonia, 100 Conn.App. 203, 917 A.2d 70 (2007) (substantial prejudice showing when evidence is excluded)
- O & G/O'Connell Joint Venture v. Chase Family Ltd. Partnership No. 3, 203 Conn. 133, 523 A.2d 1271 (1987) (full and fair hearing; evidentiary rights in arbitration)
- McCann v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 288 Conn. 203, 952 A.2d 43 (2008) (adequate opportunity to present evidence; non-cumulative impact)
- Bridgeport v. Bridgeport Fire Fighters, IAFF, Local 834, 97 Lab. Arb. Rep. (BNA) 327 (1991) (uniform application of discipline; just cause standards)