184 Conn. App. 201
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are coadministrators of the estate of a 15‑year‑old student who died by suicide after prolonged bullying while enrolled in Greenwich public schools. Plaintiffs allege school employees knew of repeated bullying but failed to follow the district’s antibullying policy, adopted under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10‑222d.
- Greenwich Board of Education developed, implemented and submitted a "Whole Student Development Policy" (with required reporting, investigation, parent notification, safety and intervention plans, and discipline procedures) pursuant to § 10‑222d; plaintiffs allege the Board’s employees failed to follow that policy.
- Plaintiffs sued for wrongful death under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52‑557n, alleging gross, reckless, willful or wanton misconduct by Board employees and vicarious liability of the Board.
- The Board moved to strike, asserting sovereign immunity because the alleged failures involved duties imposed by the state under § 10‑222d; the trial court denied the motion. The Board appealed.
- The Appellate Court affirmed, holding (1) enforcing/compliance failures are municipal acts (Board as agent of town), not state acts, and (2) the existence of the limited statutory immunity in § 10‑222l (good‑faith immunity for implementing/investigating/ responding to bullying, except for gross/wanton misconduct) confirms that sovereign immunity does not bar suits for failures to execute the policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board is entitled to sovereign immunity for alleged failure to follow an antibullying policy adopted under § 10‑222d | Board acted as municipal agent when it failed to enforce/comply with its policy; sovereign immunity does not apply | § 10‑222d deputizes boards as state agents for bullying‑policy duties; sovereign immunity bars suit | Held: No sovereign immunity; development/submission of the plan is state action, but enforcement/compliance is municipal under § 10‑240, so sovereign immunity does not apply |
| Whether the state action under § 10‑222d extends to employee-level execution of the policy (i.e., reporting, investigation, safety plans) | Failures to execute policy are municipal functions (school control/supervision) | The statutory mandate creates ongoing state control and thus state immunity | Held: State action ends with development/implementation/submission/assessment; enforcement/execution are municipal duties, not state control |
| Significance of § 10‑222l (statutory good‑faith immunity) to sovereign immunity question | Existence of § 10‑222l shows legislature intended limited immunity—boards are not broadly shielded by sovereign immunity | § 10‑222l does not waive sovereign immunity; sovereign immunity can coexist | Held: § 10‑222l’s limited immunity is inconsistent with full sovereign immunity; legislature wouldn’t create § 10‑222l if boards already had sovereign immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbia Air Servs., Inc. v. Dept. of Transp., 293 Conn. 342 (sovereign immunity is a subject‑matter jurisdictional doctrine reviewed de novo)
- Cahill v. Board of Education, 187 Conn. 94 (local boards may be agents of state for some duties and of municipality for others)
- Board of Education v. New Haven, 237 Conn. 169 (distinguishes state‑delegated duties from municipal functions for school boards)
- Purzycki v. Fairfield, 244 Conn. 101 (analyzes when school boards act for municipality vs state; sovereign immunity not applicable where duty benefits municipality)
- Cheshire v. McKenney, 182 Conn. 253 (board acts as state agent when furnishing public education under § 10‑220)
- Henderson v. State, 151 Conn. App. 246 (reciting doctrine that sovereign immunity protects state from suit and from having to litigate liability)