The Ansonia FOP Local 913 brought a case against the City of Ansonia seeking to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration stemmed from a disciplinary action taken against Detective Jonathan Troesser, a member of the FOP and an employee of the Ansonia Police Department. Troesser had filed an anonymous complaint regarding alleged harassment experienced by a fellow female officer, Officer Ovelize, at the hands of an Officer Castillo. According to Troesser’s complaint, Castillo was rude and disrespectful to Ovelize during her training, and when Ovelize complained to Sergeant Flynn, he dismissed it. Troesser’s complaint also alleged other instances of misconduct and a culture of retaliation within the Department, particularly involving the Chief, Flynn, and Castillo, creating a situation where officers and dispatchers were “scared to report issues.”
After the anonymous complaint was filed, an internal affairs investigation was initiated. Lieutenant Patrick Lynch concluded that the complaint was based on “a combination of Troesser’s conversations, information from third parties, gossip, innuendo, and his personal experiences in the Department.” As a result of the investigation, Troesser received a written warning for submitting the anonymous complaint, claiming that he engaged in “criticism and malicious gossip,” which violated Section 2.3.18 of the Department’s 1987 duty manual. Section 2.3.18 prohibits “criticizing any other member or employee of the Department, or maliciously gossiping about any superior, order, policy, procedure, case or event that should remain police information; causing to discredit, lower or injure the morale of personnel in the Department, or that of any individual of the Department, or speaking slightingly of any race, nationality, or religion.”
The Department identified three specific sentences from Troesser’s complaint that constituted prohibited conduct: (1) “I want to anonymously make a complaint to you so that it can be investigated without having the Ansonia police involved so it cannot be covered up”; (2) “There is a group within the department that are untouchable including the Chief, Flynn, Castillo and others”; and (3) “Officers and dispatchers are scared to report issues like these because of retaliation taken by this group which is protected by the Chief.”
The Connecticut State Board of Mediation and Arbitration Labor Department concluded that the City had just cause to discipline Troesser. It reasoned that while public policy protects employees from retaliation when filing good faith complaints alleging employment discrimination, Troesser’s complaint did not meet these circumstances. The Board stated that “Troesser’s reckless allegations of ‘retaliation’ and a ‘cover-up,’ while later admitting that he had no facts to support such claims, need not be tolerated.”
The FOP subsequently filed an application to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that it violated “clearly defined public policies prohibiting harassment and retaliation against Troesser for opposing and reporting gender and race discrimination as set forth in the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) and protections afforded under General Statutes § 31-51m for Troesser’s report of a violation or a suspected violation of a state or federal law or regulation or any municipal ordinance or regulation to Ansonia Police Commissioner, a member of the public body.”
The Connecticut Superior Court addressed the issue of whether the Board’s award violated public policies and found that the FOP presented a legitimate and colorable claim of such a violation: “An arbitrator’s award may be vacated if it violates clear public policy. This rule is an exception to the general rule restricting judicial review of arbitral awards. The exception, however, is narrowly construed and is limited to situations where the contract as interpreted would violate some explicit public policy that is well defined and dominant. To be vacated under the narrow public policy exception, the award must be clearly illegal or clearly in violation of a strong public policy. Furthermore, the party challenging the award bears the burden of proving that illegality or conflict with public policy is clearly demonstrated.
“In the present case, Troesser submitted an anonymous complaint about discriminatory behavior in the Department, and on the basis of the undisputed facts, there can be no real or bona fide dispute that Troesser established a prima facie case of retaliation. His anonymous complaint opposed discriminatory employment conduct, a legally protected activity, and after being identified as the complainant, he received employment discipline as a result. The law protects employees in the filing of formal charges of discrimination as well as in the making of informal protests of discrimination, including making complaints to management, writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or society in general, and expressing support of coworkers who have filed formal charges.”
The Court questioned the City’s argument that the Department had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its disciplinary action and found the argument that Troesser intended to “smear the Chief” unpersuasive. The Court also rejected the Department’s attempt to selectively sever sentences from the complaint to justify its response, calling it “retaliatory.” On the facts of this case, the City’s attempt to cherry pick parts or sentences from a legally protected complaint obviously results in an impermissible chilling effect on the protected activity itself.
The Court found that Troesser engaged in legally protected activity when he submitted the anonymous complaint, which was based on credible allegations of discriminatory behavior. The Court concluded that the FOP established a prima facie case of retaliation under § 46a-60(b) of CFEPA, and that the Board’s award confirming the disciplinary action against Troesser violated the clear public policy of CFEPA protecting such complaints. Therefore, the Court granted to vacate the arbitration award.
Ansonia Police Union FOP Loc. 913 v. City of Ansonia, 2025 Conn. Super. LEXIS 116 (Conn. Super. Ct. AAN 2025).