The plaintiff, a building official for the defendant town of Middlefield,
appealed from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his administra-
tive appeal from the decision of the defendant’s Board of Selectmen to
terminate his employment. The plaintiff was responsible for processing
applications for certificates of occupancy and administering and enforc-
ing the state building code. The board alleged, inter alia, that during
the plaintiff’s employment as the town building official, his performance
and conduct regarding several long-standing projects was unreasonable
and that he failed to follow instructions and directives. The board alleged
that the plaintiff obstructed the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
to P Co., a company that owned a commercial ski property. Thereafter,
the board unanimously voted to terminate the plaintiff’s employment
and the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court, pursuant to
statute (§ 29-260 (c)), appealing his discharge, which the court dis-
missed. Held:
1. The trial court did not err in determining that there was substantial
evidence in the record to support the board’s decision to terminate
the plaintiff’s employment as the town’s building official: the evidence
demonstrated that the plaintiff sought to carry out his vow of never
granting P Co. a certificate of occupancy by constantly interjecting new
or resolved compliance issues whenever P. Co. was on the verge of
being issued a certificate of occupancy; moreover, there was substantial
evidence of the plaintiff’s insubordination when he abandoned his duties
by leaving an inspection against instruction, repeatedly acted outside
the scope of his role by raising matters outside his jurisdiction to obstruct
the issuance of the certificate of occupancy to P Co., and misplaced
paperwork submitted to him by P Co. on more than one occasion.
2. The plaintiff could not prevail on his claim that the trial court improperly
upheld the board’s decision to terminate his employment because the
decision violated public policy, constituting a wrongful discharge, this
claim having failed for the lack of a factual finding by the board or the
trial court that the termination of his employment was pretextual and/
or retaliatory; there was substantial evidence before the board to support
the plaintiff’s discharge on one or more of the grounds set forth in its
notice of charges, as the facts presented to the board supported a
conclusion that his dismissal was warranted for failing to perform the
duties of his office, conduct which fell within the statutorily authorized
basis in § 29-260 (b) to terminate his employment, as the record demon-
strated that the plaintiff vowed that he would never issue a certificate
of occupancy to P Co. regardless of P Co.’s compliance with the build-
ing code.
Argued September 15, 2020—officially released January 19, 2021 Procedural History