Young v. City of Bridgeport
135 Conn. App. 699
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Cecil Young, elected city sheriff of Bridgeport, sued the City of Bridgeport for retaliatory discharge under §§ 31-51m and 31-51q.
- The sheriff’s duties were not mandatory; sheriffs serve summons/process and may work for others, with no fixed hours or office.
- From 2000, Young serviced process for the city under an informal verbal arrangement, paid per summons, while also serving private clients.
- In April 2006, Young stopped receiving process from the city, though he remained a sheriff with authority to serve process generally.
- Trial court granted a directed verdict, holding Young was not the city’s employee and thus not entitled to protections of §§ 31-51m and 31-51q.
- Appellate review concluded Young was not an employee but remanded to dismiss for lack of standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Young an employee of the city for standing purposes? | Young asserts he was an employee entitled to protections. | City contends Young was an independent contractor, not an employee. | Young was not an employee. |
| Does lack of employee status defeat standing under §§ 31-51m and 31-51q? | Standing should extend to those who qualify as employees under the statutes. | Only employees may seek relief under §§ 31-51m and 31-51q. | Lack of employee status deprives standing; action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Proper disposition given lack of standing; was directed verdict appropriate? | Court erred by not allowing a complete standing analysis and merits review. | Motion addressed standing; proper disposition is dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. | Judgment for defendant reversed; remanded with direction to dismiss for lack of standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. E.D. Construction, Inc., 126 Conn.App. 717 (Conn. App. 2011) (issues of employee vs. independent contractor for standing and liability)
- 418 Meadow Street Associates, LLC v. Clean Air Partners, LLC, 123 Conn.App. 416 (Conn. App. 2010) (standing and subject-matter jurisdiction; deference to trial findings)
- Frillici v. Westport, 264 Conn. 266 (Conn. 2003) (motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction when standing is challenged)
- Wilcox v. Webster Ins., Inc., 294 Conn. 206 (Conn. 2009) (standing implicates subject-matter jurisdiction; governs practice)
- State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207 (Conn. 2007) (analysis of trial ruling scope under nonjury rulings; standard of review)
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. New London, 265 Conn. 423 (Conn. 2003) (statutory standing; jurisdictional burden and burden-shifting notes)
- Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Dept. of Education, 303 Conn. 402 (Conn. 2012) (statutory aggrievement; standing arises from statute)