Heyward v. Judicial Dept.
159 Conn.App. 794
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Heyward, an African-American administrative clerk in the Meriden Superior Court clerk’s office, was the only nonwhite employee there.
- Heyward filed a CHRO complaint on July 18, 2012 alleging harassment, race and gender discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, and stress-related harm, naming the state as the respondent and Axelrod as supervisor.
- CHRO released jurisdiction on March 7, 2013 authorizing Heyward to sue in Superior Court for the CHRO-identified claims.
- On August 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed a six-count amended complaint; counts 1-3 were against both defendants, counts 4-6 against both defendants but later reduced against Axelrod and the state.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on August 14, 2013; the court dismissed counts 4-6 against the state (sovereign immunity) and all counts against Axelrod (because Axelrod was sued only in official capacity) and also dismissed count3 for disability discrimination for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, while transferring the remaining two state counts from Waterbury to Hartford.
- The appellate issue concerns (i) finality of the partial dismissal as to the state, (ii) whether dismissal of all Axelrod claims was properly appealed, and (iii) whether the venue-transfer order is an appealable final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether partial dismissal of state claims constitutes a final judgment | Heyward argues the partial dismissal is an appealable final judgment. | State contends the partial dismissal is not final because remaining state counts persist and no written Curcio-type determination was made. | Not a final judgment as to the state; only Axelrod dismissal was final. |
| Whether dismissal of all claims against Axelrod was properly reviewed on appeal | Axelrod can be sued; dismissal should be reviewed on the merits. | Axelrod dismissal was proper; the briefing failed to address sovereign immunity and exhaustion of remedies. | Abandoned; the claim was deemed inadequately briefed and not reviewed. |
| Whether the venue-transfer order removing two state counts to Hartford is appealable final judgment | Transfer order should be appealable as final under Curcio. | Transfer order is interlocutory and not final. | Interlocutory; not an appealable final judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Southport Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Kundrath, 41 Conn. App. 747 (1996) (final judgment rule and subject matter jurisdiction)
- Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc., 290 Conn. 767 (2009) (final judgment policy against piecemeal appeals)
- Tyler v. Tyler, 151 Conn. App. 98 (2014) (partial judgments require severability or written determination under Practice Book rules)
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (Curcio test for immediate appealability of interlocutory orders)
- Abreu v. Leone, 291 Conn. 332 (2009) (second prong of Curcio; preservation of rights and irreparable harm)
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Ace American Reinsurance Co., 279 Conn. 220 (2006) (second-prong Curcio analysis and severability)
- In re Justin F., 116 Conn. App. 83 (2009) (interlocutory transfer orders generally not final; Curcio guidance)
- Felletter v. Thompson, 133 Conn. 277 (1946) (transfer order generally not appealable)
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (2009) (jurisdictional questions intertwined with merits; need hearing if necessary)
- In re Juvenile Appeal (84-2), 1 Conn. App. 378 (1984) (interlocutory orders and finality concepts in jurisdiction)