Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Amended BOE Lawsuit Oct. 7, 2010

    Uploaded by

    vsundqvist
    213 views27 pages
    The city of Middletown and the Middletown Board of Education sued each other in May 2010 over hirings and firings of school employees and officers stationed at the school board offices. This is an amended version of the school district's lawsuit, filed in October.

    Original Title

    Amended BOE lawsuit Oct. 7, 2010

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The city of Middletown and the Middletown Board of Education sued each other in May 2010 over hirings and firings of school employees and officers stationed at the school board offices. This is an amended version of the school district's lawsuit, filed in October.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    213 views27 pages

    Amended BOE Lawsuit Oct. 7, 2010

    Uploaded by

    vsundqvist
    The city of Middletown and the Middletown Board of Education sued each other in May 2010 over hirings and firings of school employees and officers stationed at the school board offices. This is an amended version of the school district's lawsuit, filed in October.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 27
    Zoe Law sub May 2016 Oct. 12. 2010 1:03PM No. 3279 P. RETURNDATE: October 25, 2010 CV-10-6002595-S MIDDLETOWN BOARD : ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF EDUCATION vs. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX AT MIDDLETOWN SEBASTIAN N. GIULIANO, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MIDDLETOWN : October 7, 2010 AMENDED COMPLAINT COUNT ONE ‘The Plaintiff is the Middletown Board of Education, duly elected in ‘accordance with the laws of the State of Connecticut, Pursuant to the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 10-220, the Plaimtf? “shall have charge of the schools of its respective school istrict, . and shall have the care, maintenance, and operations of buildings, lends, apparatus and other property...” Pursuant to the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 10-222, “The money appropriated by any municipality for the maintenance of public schools shall be expended by and in the discretion of the board of education,” Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Sec, 10-248, “the expenses of the maintaining the public schools in each town, which shall be incurred Och 12 2010 1:03PM No. 3279, ‘with the approval ofthe board of education, shall bo paid by the town treasurer. . ,” Dr. Michael J, Frechetto (“Dr. Frechette”) is the Superintendent of the Middictown Public Schools and, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes, Sco. 10-157, the chief executive officer of the school district. ‘The Charter of the City of Middletown provides: The classified service shall include all non-elective officers and both full time and regu part- time employees of the City, including the secretarial and cleical staff of the Mayor's office and personnel employed by the Board of Education not requiring certification by the State Board of Edueation, and appointees to all positions now or hereafter created except the Administrative Assistant to the Mayor, the Board of Education's Director of Facilities, the Board of Education's Paraprofessionals, the Corporation Counsel, department heads ‘and assistant department heads of said City, persons employed in the professional capacity, those retained to make or conduct a temporary or special inquiry, task, study or investigation, and any persons employed for 2 temporury period not exceeding three months in any one Department, .. - A regular part-time employee of the City shall mean any person who is employed a minimum of 20 hours per week for at least 8 months ofa 12- ‘month calendar year. Charter ofthe City of Middletown, Art. X, Ses, (the “Charter” 2 Oct. 12 2010 1:039M 10. No. 3279 P, ‘The Charter also provides: “All classified employees of the City shall be ‘appointed by fhe Mayor pursuant fo and in accordance with the City Personnel Rules and Classification Plan.” Charter, Art. X., Sec 3. On or about August 30, 2010, Nancy Haynes, the Plaintiff's Business Manager, sent letters to Robert Leighton, custodian at the Central Office of the Plaintiff, Laura Rosano, Accounts Clerk for the Plaintiff's Director of Facilities, Walter Summerville, custodian at the Plaintiff's Adult Education program, and Mary Peer, Accounts Clerk at the Board's Adult Education program. (EXHIBIT A) Each of the above-named individuals ‘were to be employed for less than twenty hours per week pursuant fo Ms. Haynes's correspondence. ‘On or about August 31, 2010, the Defendant directed the Director of Personnel of the City of Middletown, Debra Milardo, to send letters to Walter Summerville, Laura Rosano, and Mary Pear, stating that “the City of Middletown [did] not zecognize [their] employment.” (BXHIBIT B). ‘The lettor also indicated that, should any of the above-named individuals “appear for purposes of employment, on City of Middletown propeny, ‘which includes Board of Education locations after (September 2, 20101, the City retains the right to notify the Middletown Police Department on Isic} charges of trespassing.” (EXHIBIT B) Laura Rosano performed work for the Plaintif? on September 7, 8 and 9, 11-16, and 19-23, 2010. (EXHIBIT C) These hours of work were approved by Ms, Rosano's supervisor, Kendall Jackson, the Plaintiff's Oct. 12 2010 1:03PM n 2. 1B. 4, 15. No. 3279 P. Director of Facilities. (EXHIBIT C) At the dizection of the Defendant, the direct deposit of Ms. Rosaro’s wages for work performed by her on September 7, 8 and 9, and 11-16 2010 was reversed. To date, Ms. Rosano hhay not been compensated for the hours of work performed by her of September 7, 8 and 9, snd 11-16, 2010. ‘Walter Summerville performed work for the Plaintiff on September3, 2010, Atthe direction of the Defendant, the paycheck prepared for Mr. Summerville for the hours of work performed by him on September 3, 2010, wes removed during the processing of the Plaintiff's paychecks by the City, To date, Mr. Summerville has not been paid for the hours of ‘work performed by him on September 3, 2010. Mary Pear has not performed work forthe Plaintiff since her receipt of the August 31, 2010 letter from Debra Milardo. Mr. Leighton has continued to work for the Plaintiff since September 7, 2010, fifteen hours per week, end has received no letter similar to thet received by Mr. Summerville, Ms, Rosano, and Ms, Pear, ‘The Defendant has no authority to “not recognize” Mr. Surtmerville’s, Ms. Rosano’s, and/or Ms, Pear’s employment, Mr. Summerville, Ms. Rosazo, and Ms, Pear do vot fall within the definition of classified service ‘under the Charter, because all three are employed for 15 hours per week. ‘The Defendant has no authority to cause Mr. Summerville and Ms. Roseno not to be paid for hours of work performed for the Plaintif®, Mr, Summervilie and Ms. Rosano do not fall within the definition of classified 4 Oct 12 2010 1:04PM 16, 1 No. 3279 P. service under the Charter, because both are employed for 15 hours per week. ‘The Defendant has no authority to threaten Mr. Summerville, Ms. Rossno end Ms, Pear with artst for trespassing, Pursuant to Conn, Gen. Stat, See, 10-220, the Pleintif?has sole authority and control over properties of the Board of Education, ‘The actions of the Defendant, in directing the Personne! Director to interfere with the performance of work for the Plaintiff, interfere with the payment of employees of the Plaintiff for hours of work duly performed, and throaton Plaintiff's employees with arrest for trespassing ifthe Plaintiff's employees report for work has been and continues to be highly disruptive of the Plaintiff's operations and, therefore, has substantially and rmuterilly interfered with the Plaintiff's operations. 18. The Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT TWO 19, Paragrapks 1-7 of Count One are hereby incorporated and realleged, 20, Linda Adler is receptionist at the Plaintiff's Adult Education facility, Ms. at. ‘Adler works less than twenty hours per week. On or about September 16, 2010, at the direction of the Defendant, the City’s Director of Personnel, Debra Milardo sent a letter to Ms, Adler. (EXHIBIT 5) The letter ecroneously stated that Ms. Adler had “received correspondence from the [Plaintiff] indicating that they [sic] were rehiring {her] effective Thursday, September 17, 2010, The letter also stated that Oct. 12. 2016. 1:04PM 2. 24. 25, No. 3279 P. “the City of Middletown [did] not recognize ther} employment.” (EXHIBIT £). ‘The letter also indicated that, should Ms. Adler “appear for purposes of employment, on City of Middletown property, which includes Board of Education locations after [September 17, 2010], the City retains the right to notify the Middletown Police Department on {sic] charges of trespassing.” (EXHIBIT E) ‘The Defendant has no authority to “not recognize” Ms. Adler's employment. Ms, Adler does not fall within the definition of classified service under the Charter, because she works fewer than twenty Bours per week, The Defendant has no authority to eaten Ms, Adler with arrest for trespassing. Pursuant to Conn. Gen, Stat. Sec. 10-220, the Plaintiff as sole authority and control over properties of the Board of Education. The actions of the Defendant, in directing the Personnel Director, to interfere with the performance of work by the Plaintif’s employee, Ms. Adler end to threaten Plaintif's employee Ms, Adler with arrest for trespassing if she reports for work has been and continues to be highly

    You might also like