Background
Detective Jonathan Troesser, represented by his union, submitted an anonymous complaint in 2022 to the Ansonia Police Commissioner alleging that a fellow officer had experienced harassment based on race or gender. The complaint identified specific incidents, including a supervisor’s “ebonics” comment and dismissive treatment of new hires. When the department discovered Troesser was the complainant after conducting an internal affairs investigation, he received a written warning on August 5, 2022 for “criticism and malicious gossip” under the department’s Duty Manual.
The union challenged the disciplinary action through arbitration. The State Board of Mediation and Arbitration upheld the discipline on August 15, 2023, reasoning that while public policy protects employees from retaliation for filing discrimination complaints, Troesser’s allegations did not meet that standard because he later admitted having no facts to support certain claims. The union then filed to vacate the arbitration award, asserting it violated public policy under both Connecticut’s Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) and the whistleblower statute (§ 31-51m).
The trial court granted the application to vacate on January 23, 2025, finding the award violated the public policy underlying both statutes. The trial court determined Troesser engaged in legally protected activity when he submitted the discrimination complaint and suffered an adverse employment action in the form of the written warning, satisfying the elements of retaliation under CFEPA. The city appealed, challenging only the whistleblower statute ground.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot, holding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to proceed. The court noted that the trial court vacated the arbitration award on two independent, alternative grounds: first, under CFEPA; and second, under § 31-51m. The city’s appellate brief addressed only the whistleblower statute claim, making only passing references to CFEPA and failing to substantively challenge the trial court’s CFEPA analysis.
Under Connecticut law, when an appellant challenges a trial court’s adverse ruling but fails to challenge all independent bases for that ruling, the appeal is moot. The court explained that even if it agreed with the city on the § 31-51m issue, it could not provide any relief because the binding adverse finding regarding CFEPA would still support vacating the award. Since the city abandoned its challenge to the CFEPA ground by inadequately briefing it, no practical relief could flow from a successful appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Appellants must challenge all independent grounds supporting an adverse judgment; failure to do so renders an appeal moot and deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.
- A written warning issued to an employee after management discovered he filed a discrimination complaint constitutes retaliation in violation of CFEPA’s public policy against discrimination.
- Connecticut’s whistleblower statute (§ 31-51m) protects employees who report suspected violations of state or federal law to public bodies, even if later aspects of their claims are unsupported.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a critical procedural requirement: when a trial court rules against an appellant on multiple independent grounds, the appellant cannot obtain relief by attacking only one ground. This rule preserves judicial efficiency and prevents piecemeal appeals where a party ignores an alternative basis for the judgment it dislikes. The city’s failure to brief the CFEPA issue—despite the trial court’s detailed analysis—cost it any possibility of reversal, even on the whistleblower statute question.
Substantively, the decision strengthens protections for police officers and other public employees who report workplace discrimination. It establishes that both CFEPA and the whistleblower statute shield employees from discipline following a discrimination complaint, and that arbitration awards punishing such protected activity violate Connecticut public policy. The opinion reinforces that disciplinary action following an employee’s protected complaint can constitute unlawful retaliation, particularly when the discipline references the content of the protected activity itself.