140 Conn. App. 773
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Wilbert Lawrence, a former state vocational school teacher, challenged a 2010 stipulated severance agreement terminating his employment.
- The stipulation provided resignation by July 1, 2010 and barred him from state teaching positions; he sought rescission, declaratory relief, and monetary relief.
- During negotiations, Lawrence alleges the state misrepresented that all actions and charges would be terminated and that he could pursue other state employment; these representations are claimed to be false.
- The plaintiff filed suit June 23, 2010 after the state allegedly refused rescission, asserting injunctive/declaratory relief and, implicitly, financial remedies.
- The trial court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, invoking sovereign immunity; the appellate court affirmed, concluding immunity bars the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does rescission of a contract with the state implicate sovereign immunity? | Lawrence argues the action does not affect fiscal resources and may proceed without the claims commissioner. | The state argues sovereign immunity bars such relief absent statutory waiver or excess of authority by officers. | Sovereign immunity bars the action. |
| Can alleged misrepresentations during settlement overcome immunity under Columbia Air Services? | Misconduct allegations imply a constitutional interest and permit jusdicitional review. | There is no proper pleading of a protected interest or improper conduct beyond standard misrepresentation. | No, misrepresentation claim does not overcome immunity. |
| Does the plaintiff have a constitutionally protected property interest in state employment based on the stipulation? | The agreement created a property interest in employment and entitlement to due process protections. | The agreement merely precluded teaching roles; it does not confer a cognizable property interest or guarantee future nonteaching employment. | No cognizable property interest created; due process not violated. |
| Does the feasibility of rescission without adverse fiscal impact affect immunity? | Rescission could be crafted to minimize fiscal impact and avoid broad waiver. | Rescission would still entail salary/back pay and administrative costs, affecting the state fiscally. | Remedy would have adverse fiscal impact; barred by immunity. |
| Was the plaintiff required to obtain permission from the claims commissioner to sue? | Not explicitly addressed; argues waiver or non-necessity of consent. | Lack of authorization by legislature or claims commissioner prevents suit. | Sovereign immunity bars the action absent waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lombardo Bros. Mason Contractors, Inc., 307 Conn. 412 (2012) (sovereign immunity requires express waiver or excess of statutory authority)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Law, 284 Conn. 701 (2007) (strictly construed derogation of immunity; exceptions narrow)
- Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 293 Conn. 342 (2009) (injunctive/declaratory relief exception for excess of authority)
- Shay v. Rossi, 253 Conn. 134 (2000) (misrepresentation claims; due process considerations refined)
- Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301 (2003) (limits on constitutional challenges to state actions)