151 Conn.App. 60
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Winterbottom was employed as Stratford’s Human Resources Director under a written at‑will employment letter setting salary at $90,844 (effective July 1, 2008) and specifying increases only by mayor recommendation and council approval.
- In spring 2009 the Town Council approved the municipal budget and reduced Winterbottom’s salary to $85,884, which lowered the nominal hourly rate used to compute his termination "cash‑out."
- Mayor Miron terminated Winterbottom on December 11, 2009 and personally approved the categories/hours used to calculate a cash‑out; the town paid the cash‑out (with tax withholdings) and later issued a W‑2 including that amount.
- The town sued to recover $9,744.56 it claimed was an overpayment (counts: money had and received, unjust enrichment, conversion); Winterbottom counterclaimed for breach of contract for the salary reduction and sought double wages and attorney’s fees under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31‑72.
- Trial court found the mayor had not exceeded authority (inferred from prior cases), Winterbottom kept the cash‑out in good conscience, the council improperly reduced his salary under the written agreement, and awarded Winterbottom damages (including double wages) and attorney’s fees; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether council lawfully reduced Winterbottom’s salary in violation of the written agreement | Council had authority under charter to set/adjust salaries as part of budget and the at‑will relationship allowed termination/rehiring at new terms | Agreement fixed base salary and allowed only mayor‑recommended increases subject to council approval; reduction violated paragraph 2 and paragraph 12 (modifications require written mayor and employee signatures) | Court: Reduction was improper; agreement unambiguous as to salary and only allowed increases per its terms, so Winterbottom entitled to lost wages and remedies under §31‑72 |
| Whether mayor had unilateral power to set or modify cash‑out calculation | Town contended mayor had broad authority under charter provisions to set cash‑out categories/hours | Winterbottom relied on equitable defenses and prior case law holding retention may be permitted | Appellate court declined to decide mayoral authority because trial court’s equitable finding (good conscience) was sufficient to resolve money‑had‑and‑received claim |
| Whether Winterbottom may keep the cash‑out in good conscience (equitable prong) | Town: payment was a mistake/unauthorized and should be recoverable | Winterbottom: he did not participate in his own calculation, received W‑2 and paid taxes, and retention is equitable | Court: Winterbottom retained cash‑out in good conscience; equities favor him given town’s issuance of W‑2 and post‑payment conduct |
| Whether attorney’s fees/double damages under §31‑72 were proper | Town: reduction and remedies not recoverable as claimed; statutory remedies inapplicable | Winterbottom: reduction of salary violated agreement; §31‑72 entitles employee to double damages and fees for unpaid wages | Court: Award under §31‑72 proper for unpaid wages; affirmed attorney’s fees (no need to decide separately whether bad‑faith litigation also warranted fees) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stratford v. Castater, 136 Conn. App. 522 (Conn. App. 2012) (analyzing money‑had‑and‑received and equitable prong for cash‑out disputes)
- Fennell v. Hartford, 238 Conn. 809 (Conn. 1996) (discussing municipal officer authority and implied contract issues)
- Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. Bridgeport, 103 Conn. 249 (Conn. 1925) (describing equitable basis for action of money had and received)
- McKeon v. Lennon, 147 Conn. App. 366 (Conn. App. 2013) (standard for contract interpretation and ambiguity analysis)
- Cirrito v. Turner Construction Co., 189 Conn. 701 (Conn. 1983) (courts cannot add new terms to clear contract provisions)