Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

39 Conn. App. 772

Bulger v. Lieberman

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided December 5, 1995

Connecticut Appellate Court · decided 1995-12-05

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 1999

6 state decisions

Relies on Richardson v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc. · Corey v. Avco-Lycoming Division · Genovese v. Gallo Wine Merchants, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-12-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1In this action based on the wrongful termination of employment, the plaintiff appeals from *773the judgment of the trial court granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court based its decision on the doctrine of collateral estoppel because the issue of wrongful termination was previously litigated in binding arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. We conclude that the issues in this case are governed by Corey v. Avco-Lycoming Division, 163 Conn. 309, 318, 307 A.2d 155 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1116, 93 S. Ct. 903, 34 L. Ed. 2d 699 (1973), and do not fall within the exceptions explicated in Genovese v. Gallo Wine Merchants, Inc., 226 Conn. 475, 628 A.2d 946 (1993).

¶2Accordingly, the general rule outlined in Coreycontrols, and the factual determinations made in final and binding arbitration are given preclusive effect. See Bus-coni v. Dighello, 39 Conn. App. 753, 766-68, 668 A.2d 716 (1995). The arbitration panel’s unanimous decision that the plaintiff resigned from her employment with the town is binding on her under the doctrine of collateral estoppel and is dispositive of the issues alleged in this case.

¶3The judgment is affirmed.

/39/connapp/772 · .json · Public domain