Johnson v. Board of Education
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** CLEAVEN A. JOHNSON, JR. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN ET AL. (SC 18893) Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued September 17 officially released October 22, 2013 William F. Gallagher, with whom, on the brief, were Max F. Brunswick and Josephine Smalls Miller, for the appellant (plaintiff). Warren L. Holcomb, for the appellees (defendants). Opinion PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Cleaven A. Johnson, Jr., brought the present action alleging wrongful termination against the defendants, the Board of Education of the City of New Haven, the City of New Haven (city), Reginald Mayo, the Superintendent of Public Schools for the city, and Deborah Speese-Linehan, the plaintiff s supervisor. The plaintiff, who worked as an in-school drug education prevention worker, was terminated from his employment when the federal grant that funded his position expired. Subsequently, the plaintiff brought this action alleging that the defendants retaliated against him, in violation of his rights under the first amendment to the United States constitution, by terminating his employment because he made certain statements concerning a promotion and salary increase awarded to another employee. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants and the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court improperly excluded evidence of a recall provision contained within the collective bargaining agreement (agreement) between the city and the union representing the plaintiff, the New Haven Management & Professional Management Union, Local 3144, Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, on the ground that such evidence was irrelevant to the plaintiff s cause of action. The plaintiff had sought to show that the defendants refusal to recall him to fill a vacant drug education prevention worker position in accordance with the agreement demonstrated that his employment was terminated because of his comments concerning the other employee rather than for the pretextual reason offered by the defendants, namely, the expiration of the federal grant. The Appellate Court disagreed with the plaintiff s evidentiary claim and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Johnson v. Board of Education, 130 Conn. App. 191, 193 94, 23 A.3d 68 (2011). The Appellate Court noted that, because the recall provision did not guarantee the right to be recalled every time a position became available, the defendants did not violate the agreement by failing to recall the plaintiff to fill the vacant position. Id., 204 205. The court concluded that the recall provision was, therefore, irrelevant to the plaintiff s first amendment claims because it did not tend to make it more or less likely that the plaintiff was laid off as a result of his comments regarding the other employee. Id., 205 206. We granted certification on the following question: Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court s exclusion of the recall provision in the plaintiff s employment contract as irrelevant? Johnson v. Board of Education, 303 Conn. 907, 908, 32 A.3d 961 (2011). After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
