The plaintiff city sought to confirm an arbitration award issued in connection
with the termination of the defendant’s employment as a police officer
for the city. The city’s chief of police, C, requested an internal affairs
investigation of the defendant on the basis of his alleged insubordination
and misappropriation of public funds after he enrolled in a training
course at the city’s expense even though his request to attend that
training had been denied. Upon learning of this investigation, the defen-
dant filed a complaint against C in which he alleged a pattern of retalia-
tory conduct. An independent consultant, R, was hired to conduct the
internal affairs investigation of the defendant, and he concluded, in
relevant part, that the insubordination allegation was substantiated.
The city hired an attorney, A, to investigate the defendant’s allegations
against C. A concluded that the totality of the evidence did not support,
and in many instances was contradictory to, a finding of retaliation by
C. As a result of A’s findings, the city manager placed the defendant on
administrative leave and requested that an internal affairs investigation
be conducted regarding the defendant’s allegations against C. R was
retained to act as an independent hearing officer. R reviewed the results
of A’s investigation and determined that many of the defendant’s allega-
tions against C were not made in good faith and that some were know-
ingly false, and that the defendant violated certain police department
rules and an order pertaining to topics such as accountability, dishonesty
and retaliatory conduct. Upon R’s recommendation, the city terminated
the defendant’s employment. The defendant’s union filed a grievance
on behalf of the defendant, which was submitted to arbitration. After
a hearing, the arbitration panel made numerous factual findings and
issued its award, which stated that the defendant’s termination had been
for just cause. The city filed an application with the trial court to confirm
the award, and the defendant subsequently filed an application to vacate
the award. Following a hearing, the trial court rendered judgment grant-
ing the city’s application to confirm the award and denying the defen-
dant’s application to vacate the award, from which the defendant
appealed to this court. Held:
1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court applied
the incorrect legal standard when it reviewed his application to vacate
the arbitration award because he alleged that the award was procured
by corruption, fraud or undue means pursuant to the applicable statute
(§ 52-418 (a) (1)): the trial court properly determined that § 52-418 (a)
(1)) did not apply to warrant vacatur of the arbitration award because,
although the defendant repeatedly asserted, without any factual support,
that an e-mail he discovered after the arbitration hearing was concealed
from him and that the e-mail contained facts material to the panel’s
determination, the trial court did not have reason to consider that e-mail
when rendering its decision, as the defendant did not provide the court
with an affidavit to authenticate the e-mail or to show that he was the
individual referenced in the e-mail; moreover, the defendant offered no
explanation as to how he obtained the e-mail or why he was unable to
discover it prior to the arbitration hearing; furthermore, the defendant’s
arguments concerning the e-mail and the effect it would have had on
the award had he introduced it as evidence at the arbitration hearing
were purely speculative.
2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court erred in
determining that the arbitration procedure was fair and impartial on
the basis of his claim that the panel improperly allowed C to be present
at the arbitration hearing while his subordinates were testifying:
although the defendant argued that C’s presence at the hearing had a
chilling effect on the subordinates’ testimony, he acknowledged that he
could not point to any specific instances in which that testimony was
affected by C’s presence and did not cite case law to support his argu-
ments; moreover, the defendant did not argue that C should have been
sequestered in order to prevent him from shaping his testimony to falsely
corroborate the testimony of another witness, which is the purpose of
sequestration; furthermore, it was for the arbitration panel to determine
whether and when sequestration was to occur.
3. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court erred
by overlooking the arbitration panel’s reliance on an investigation that
was not fair and impartial: although the defendant attempted to raise
public policy concerns about the panel’s alleged reliance on A’s investiga-
tion by arguing that A’s representation of the city and C in other matters
prevented her from conducting a fair and impartial investigation of C
in the present case, the defendant was essentially raising an evidentiary
claim, and, because the submission to arbitration was unrestricted, the
trial court was not permitted to review the evidence considered by the
panel, and this court would not review the award for errors of fact;
moreover, because the defendant had the opportunity to raise his con-
cerns about A at the arbitration hearing and it was within the province
of the panel to consider A’s relationship with the city and C and what
effect, if any, those relationships had on her investigation, the defendant
failed to identify a clear public policy that allegedly was violated by the
panel’s award.
Argued February 14—officially released June 14, 2022 Procedural History