Burke v. Bridgeport

1 Citing case

  1. Paiva v. City of Bridgeport

    Civ. No. 3:17CV00081 (WWE) (D. Conn. Aug. 15, 2019)   Cited 2 times
    Concluding that the defendant "offered evidence that it terminated [the plaintiff's] probationary employment for poor performance rather than for a discriminatory reason"

    For example, Resnick and Kos both involved competitive employment examinations in accordance with civil service provisions. See e.g. Doc. #57 at 28 (citing Ziomek v. Bartimole, 156 Conn. 604, 610 (1969)(regarding strict compliance with statutory provisions for civil service examinations), Walker v.Jankura, 162 Conn. 482, 489-90 (1972)(holding that "[s]tatutory provisions for civil service examinations must be strictly complied with..."); Id. at 30 (citing Cassella v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of City of New Britain, 202 Conn. 28, 35 (1987)(reviewing civil service law provisions for promotion by competitive examination); Id. at 32 (citing Burke v. City of Bridgeport, 2008 WL 1735584, at *4 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 31, 2008)(involving collective bargaining process related to promotional examinations). Under the circumstances of this case, the lapse of the probationary period during the investigation of plaintiff's bullying complaint before the Commission, Personnel Director and Department Head voted on plaintiff's termination of probationary employment did not violate the civil service provisions of the Bridgeport City Charter.