Posts tagged with "hearing"

Tenured Teacher’s Wrongful Termination Claims Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

This past June, the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford granted a school district’s motion to dismiss a wrongful termination lawsuit by a teacher, who claimed he was fired because of his disability. Rather than reaching the merits of the case, the Court stated it lacked jurisdiction. This case illuminates the importance for teachers and staff to first exhaust all administrative remedies, including enumerated appeals processes, before seeking recourse with the courts.

Case Details

The teacher was a tenured physical education teacher at a public middle school in Norwalk when he allegedly became the target of continuous, inappropriate harassment and threats made by the school principal. The teacher sought therapy and was diagnosed with a chronic traumatic stress disorder, and the licensed therapist suggested that he seek reassignment to another school district. The teacher informed the school district of this recommendation, though he was denied a transfer to a physical education teacher position at another school within the district. Approximately one year later, the teacher was discharged and filed a lawsuit, alleging, in part, wrongful termination on the basis of mental disability discrimination.

The school district filed a motion to dismiss these counts, arguing that the teacher “failed to exhaust his administrative and statutory remedies pursuant to the Teacher Tenure Act, General Statutes § 10-151.”[1] Therefore, the school district argued, the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the teacher’s claims. The teacher countered that a § 10-151 was not the only remedy he could seek: rather, he could bring his wrongful discharge course of action under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, or CFEPA. In addition, the teacher asserted that exhaustion was not required because “it would have been futile for him to pursue his claims with the board of education.”[2]

Administrative Remedies Under § 10-151

Connecticut courts have consistently found that “[a] tenured teacher’s challenge of an allegedly wrongful discharge, is governed by and limited to the statutory appeal process provided by § 10-151(e)… Thus, the plaintiff cannot pursue a separate tort claim for wrongful discharge. Instead, she is limited by the available administrative remedies under § 10-151.”[3] Thus, a court will not have jurisdiction unless the tenured teacher exhausted his administrative remedies or an exception to the exhaustion doctrine applies.[4]

The administrative remedies of § 10-151 can be outlined as follows:

  1. Prior to termination: written notice that termination is being considered must be given to the tenured teacher
  2. Within 7 days of receipt of notice in #1: teacher must file written request asking for reasons for termination
  3. Within 7 days of receipt of request in #2: written statement outlining the reasons must be supplied to the tenured teacher
  4. Within 20 days of receipt of statement from #3: teacher must file a written request for a hearing
  5. Within 15 days of receipt of request in #4: the hearing must be held

After the teacher received the written statement with the reasons for termination, he did not file a written request for a hearing. He asserted that he was:

[A]dvised by my attorney that the Norwalk [t]eachers [u]nion [p]resident, who was about to retire, was unsupportive of teachers in the [s]chool [d]istrict and would not assist them in termination hearings, would not bring grievances on their behalf and would not cooperate in terms of designating a teacher representative to the impartial hearing panel. Thus, I was advised by [my attorney] that a hearing pursuant to [s]ection 10-151(d) would be futile.[5]

The Court’s Decision

However, the Court was not persuaded on the teacher’s futility claim, which is a valid exception the exhaustion rule, because he failed to demonstrate that it “would have been futile for him to request a § 10-151(d) hearing.” The purpose of this hearing is “to resolve the question of whether any of the asserted grounds for termination is supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing.”[6] In this case, “if the plaintiff had requested the hearing afforded to him pursuant to § 10-151(d), he could have presented evidence demonstrating that the defendants sought to fire him for an illegal and discriminatory reason.”[7] 

Therefore, his tactical decision amounted to a deliberate decision to not avail himself of the statutory recourse available to him, and “[h]is failure to request a hearing and to pursue his available remedies is thus fatal to his present cause of action.”[8] The Superior Court thus granted the school district’s motion to dismiss the wrongful discharge claims.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

As a teacher, it is imperative that you understand Connecticut’s statutory scheme surrounding hiring, evaluation, and termination processes. Should you have any questions regarding these or other education law matters, you should seek the counsel of an experienced school law practitioner. Please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut (located in Fairfield County), by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at


[1] Diaco v. Norwalk Public School District, 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1544 at 6.

[2] Id. at 12.

[3] Tomlinson v. Board of Education, 226 Conn. 704, 730 (1993).

[4] Mendillo v. Board of Education, 246 Conn. 456, 464 (1998); Niestemki v. Ramos, Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield, Docket No. CV 06-5001386 (November 20, 2008, Bellis, J.)

[5] Id. at 21, n.8.

[6] Mendillo v. Board of Education, supra. 246 Conn. 468-69.

[7] Diaco v. Norwalk Public School District, supra, 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1544 at 22.

[8] LaCroix v. Board of Education, 199 Conn. 70, 83-84 (1986).

Special Education Discipline and Interim Educational Settings

Children that require special education and related services must comply with a school district’s student code of conduct. That being said, the disciplinary procedures that apply are somewhat distinct from those used with non-special education students. In an article posted previously, I described the expulsion process for special education students in more general terms – today, let’s narrow that focus.

Special Education Discipline Process

If your special education child faces disciplinary action, his or her planning and placement team (PPT), of which you may be a member, will schedule a meeting to conduct a “manifestation determination.” In other words, the PPT will figure out whether “your child’s behavior was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to his or her disability.”[1] The PPT will also figure out whether the school district failed to implement your child’s individualized education program (IEP), thus prompting the misbehavior. The manifest determination must be conducted no later than ten (10) days after a decision to change your child’s placement.[2]

If the PPT concludes that your child’s behavior did not result from his or her disability, he or she will be disciplined consistent with that received by any other student who behaved in the same way. However, if the PPT establishes either that the behavior “was a manifestation of his or her disability or was due to a failure to implement his or her IEP,”[3] the PPT must perform a functional behavioral assessment (assessment) as well as create and implement a behavioral intervention plan (plan).[4]

The assessment is used to gather information that may shed light on why your child acted the way he or she did, as well as “identify strategies to address your child’s behavior.”[5] In turn, the plan should be designed in a way so as to teach your child how to properly behave, as well as deter and eliminate negative behaviors.

Long-Term Placement in an IES

It is important to keep in mind, however, that your child could be removed from his or her current placement and into an interim educational setting (IES). In most instances, this alternative placement must not exceed ten (10) days and is determined by your child’s IEP. In limited situations, however, your school district may decide to place your child in an IES for upwards of forty-five (45) days. This is without regard to the results of the PPT’s manifestation determination. The three circumstances where this may occur are as follows:

  • Your child carried or possessed a weapon to school or to a school-sponsored activity.
  • Your child knowingly possessed or used an illegal drug, or sold or solicited the sale of a controlled substance on school grounds or at a school-sponsored activity.
  • Your child inflicted serious bodily injury upon a fellow student, staff member, or any other person while on school grounds or at a school-sponsored activity.
What if I disagree with my child’s placement?

If you, as a parent, disagree with any decision relating to the above, you have the right to file for a due process hearing.[6] Unless you and the school district agree to otherwise, your child will remain in the IES until either the placement expires or a post-hearing decision is rendered.[7] Your local education agency must hold the hearing within twenty (20) days of the filing, and the hearing officer must render a decision within ten (10) days after the hearing.[8] Furthermore, the hearing officer has authority to your child’s regular placement if he or she “determines that removal was not valid or your child’s behavior was a manifestation of his or her disability.”[9]

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

Because of the potentially adverse and significant impact a suspension or expulsion can have on a student’s future, it is imperative to seek the advice of an experienced school law practitioner. The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., assist clients in Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, and Westport. Should you have any questions regarding school discipline, special education, or other education law matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut (located in Fairfield County), by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at


[1] “Advocating on Your Child’s Behalf: A Parent’s Guide to Connecticut School Law,” by Joseph C. Maya, Esq.,, pp.31.

[2] 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e).

[3] See Footnote 1.

[4] 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(f)(1)(i)-(ii).

[5] See Footnote 1.

[6] 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a).

[7] 34 C.F.R. § 300.533.

[8] 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2).

[9] See Footnote 1.

Navigating the Channels of School Suspension Protocol

Hot off the press: “A new state law has significantly reduced the number of students being suspended from school…”[1] This is in large part due to the passage of Public Act No. 08-160, “An Act Concerning School Learning Environment,” which modified the circumstances which schools under State law could suspend its students, instead showing a preference for in-school suspensions.[2] Thus, during the 2010-2011 academic school year, “when the law went into effect… the number of out-of-school suspensions dropped statewide by 19 percent, or 9,835 incidents.”[3]

While “some incidents will still warrant suspensions,” [Waterbury Superintendent of Schools Kathleen Ouellette explained that] she’s deployed several initiatives to ensure that students are not being sent home for minor infractions like dress code violations, talking back to their teachers or skipping class. “We are trying to reach them and intervene before it escalates to that point.”

The Connecticut legislature has enumerated the circumstances under which a student may be suspended: if on school grounds or at a school-sponsored activity, the conduct violates an established, publicized school board policy, seriously disrupts the educational process, or endangers persons or property.[4] If the conduct took place off school grounds, the school board may only entertain a suspension if both the first two circumstances are met.

What does the school board consider when a student is facing a suspension?

Say your child has committed an act off school grounds, and the school is contemplating a suspension. What must it consider? Under Connecticut law, to determine if the conduct will seriously disrupt the educational process, your local school board must consider at least the following, though they are not limited to these four factors: Whether…

  1. The incident occurred within close proximity of a school
  2. Other students from the school were involved or whether there was any gang involvement
  3. The conduct involved violence, threats of violence or the unlawful use of a weapon… and whether any injuries occurred
  4. The conduct involved the use of alcohol

As a parent, it is vital to realize that your child cannot be automatically suspended without an informal administrative hearing. This is because in Goss v. Lopez, the U.S. Supreme Court explained the import of due process in a suspension scenario:

Among other things, the State is constrained to recognize a student’s legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest which is protected by the Due Process Clause and which may not be taken away for misconduct without adherence to the minimum procedures required by [the Due Process] Clause. [5]

Suspension Hearings

Thus, barring emergency circumstances, students facing a suspension (thus temporarily losing their property interest) “must be given some kind of notice and afforded some kind of hearing”[6] so they know why they are being suspended and given the chance to tell their side of the story. The hearing is the best place for a student to convince school officials that an out-of-school suspension is not warranted for any given number of reasons, such as the behavior not qualifying as prohibited conduct, the lack of disciplinary history,[7] or the use of an in-school suspension as a viable and reasonable alternative.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

The intricacies involved regarding in- and out-of-school suspensions can be difficult to comprehend, and could potentially result in the deprivation of a student’s protected rights. As such, if your child faces a suspension, it is imperative that you know all of these rights and consult with an experienced school law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding school discipline or other education law matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut (located in Fairfield County), by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at

[1] “School suspension rates drop, but minority students still over-represented,” by Jacqueline Rabe Thomas. October 2, 2012:

[2] Connecticut General Statutes § 10-223c(g).

[3] See Footnote 1.

[4] Connecticut General Statutes § 10-223c(a)

[5] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 574 (1975).

[6] Id. at 580.

[7] Connecticut General Statutes § 10-223c(e)

I was Fired from my Job for Violating Rules and Regulations for Safety and General Conduct, Can I Collect Unemployment?

If you are fired for safety violations it is unclear whether you are eligible to collect unemployment.  It is possible that your former employer will not fight your unemployment claim and you may be eligible to collect.  However, given the nature of your termination, it is probably more likely that you will not be eligible to collect unemployment benefits.  Regardless, you are entitled to a hearing regarding this claim.  It may be in your best interest to consult an attorney if you are confused or overwhelmed going into this hearing.

If you have any questions regarding employment law in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him directly at