State v. Connecticut Employees Union Independent
142 A.3d 1122
| Conn. | 2016Background
- Grievant Gregory Linhoff, a 15‑year state employee and skilled maintainer at UConn Health Center, was observed smoking marijuana in a state vehicle during his shift; he possessed ~0.75 ounce and was arrested but criminal charges were later dismissed.
- The Health Center terminated Linhoff for violating drug‑free and workplace policies, citing unsupervised duties and campus access as safety/security concerns.
- The union filed a grievance; an arbitrator found misconduct but ruled termination was not for just cause and ordered reinstatement with a six‑month unpaid suspension, one year of random testing, and "last chance" status.
- The State sought vacatur of the award, arguing it violated public policy against workplace marijuana use; the trial court vacated the award and denied confirmation.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the arbitration award violated an explicit, well‑defined, dominant public policy and whether only termination would suffice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator's reinstatement (with suspension/conditions) violates public policy against workplace marijuana use | Linhoff's deliberate on‑duty drug use and access to sensitive areas make reinstatement impermissible; public policy requires termination | Arbitrator's remedy (severe suspension, testing, last‑chance) vindicates policy and allows rehabilitation; public policy does not mandate termination | Reversed trial court: public policy exists against workplace marijuana, but does not clearly require termination here; award confirmed |
| Whether sources of law (statutes/regulations/federal Drug‑Free Workplace Act) require termination | State: statutes/regs and public safety concerns support termination | Union: statutes/regs permit lesser discipline and encourage rehabilitation; federal act allows alternatives to termination | Held: statutes/regs and federal act allow discipline short of termination and support rehabilitation; do not mandate firing |
| Whether the grievant's position implicates public safety/trust such that reinstatement is forbidden | State: maintainer had campus access, vehicle, potential safety risks — warrants dismissal | Union: duties not safety‑sensitive in core sense; arbitrator found no danger to persons/property | Held: position does not sufficiently implicate public safety/trust to require termination |
| Whether arbitrator's factual findings (egregiousness, incorrigibility) may be second‑guessed | State: argued conduct was flagrant and message unacceptable | Union: arbitrator found mitigating factors, good record, and low recidivism risk — courts must defer | Held: Courts defer to arbitrator on factual findings and on incorrigibility absent record showing inevitable recidivism; here deference appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Burr Road Operating Co. II, LLC v. New England Health Care Employees Union, Dist. 1199, 316 Conn. 618 (Conn. 2015) (articulates four‑factor framework for public‑policy review of reinstatement awards)
- State v. New England Health Care Employees Union, Dist. 1199, AFL‑CIO, 271 Conn. 127 (Conn. 2004) (public policy exception to arbitration is narrow; awards vacated only for clear violations)
- Enfield v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1029, 100 Conn.App. 470 (Conn. App. 2007) (recognizes Connecticut public policy against workplace marijuana use)
- Saint Mary Home, Inc. v. Service Employees Int'l Union, Dist. 1199, 116 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1997) (federal Drug‑Free Workplace Act does not necessarily require termination; reinstatement upheld under conditions)
- Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 531 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (upholding conditional reinstatement with rehabilitation and monitoring as not contrary to public policy)