Former Department of Revenue Services (DRS) Tax Legal Director Marilee Corr Clark has appealed a Superior Court decision upholding her 2020 termination from Connecticut’s tax collecting agency, the culmination of several years of conflict between Clark and First Assistant Commissioner Louis Bucari that involved claims of a hostile work environment, a monetary settlement with DRS, and legislation submitted to the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee.
Clark’s termination was upheld by both the Employee Review Board (ERB) and Superior Court Judge Matthew Budznik after it was determined Clark submitted legislative language on behalf of DRS that would have essentially stripped Bucari’s position of its classified status and placed his job under the purview of the Attorney General’s Office.
The legislation had not been approved by Acting DRS Commissioner John Biello, who was then forced to testify against his own agency’s bill during a public hearing. He terminated Clark shortly thereafter. In his decision, Judge Budznik determined there was substantial evidence that Clark acted out of personal animus and that there was “just and reasonable cause” for her termination.
Clark, an attorney who is representing herself, however, is arguing in her appeal that neither the ERB nor the Superior Court utilized the just cause standard for employee discipline, a practice of progressive discipline for state employees. The seven guidelines or tests for just cause termination include giving the employee fair warning of consequences, a fair investigation, and whether such discipline has been equally applied to other employees by the agency.
Clark is arguing that her discipline was more severe than other employees who have committed more egregious violations, that claims of “insubordination” were not supported by factual evidence, and that there was no work rule that legislation be approved by Biello at the time she submitted it to the Connecticut Bar Association for consideration by the Judiciary Committee.
“As a permanent state employee in the classified service, Clark was entitled to the due process rights of progressive discipline and just cause,” Clark wrote in her brief. “This failure by DRS to apply the concepts of progressive discipline and just cause is a clear legal error on the part of DRS and a violation of Clark’s statutory and constitutional due process rights.”
The ERB had previously argued that progressive discipline in Clark’s case was not applicable because her violation was so egregious and therefore “not a factor,” according to court documents, and DRS argued that Clark was not entitled to progressive discipline because she was not a union member
However, Clark is arguing that the standard is applicable to both union and non-union employees in classified service based on state statute, regulations, and prior court cases.
The statute regarding classified service employees indicates that an appointing authority – in this case, DRS – “may dismiss any employee in the classified service when the authority considers the good of the service will be served thereby,” however, the statute also indicates that such termination be guided by state regulations.
According to state regulations, classified employees may be dismissed for “just cause,” which for classified employees includes conviction of a felony or misdemeanor, offensive or abusive conduct, unsatisfactory service ratings, theft, intoxication on the job, insubordination and engaging in activity that is “detrimental to the best interests of the agency,” according to state regulations.
“The relevant statute and related regulations do not distinguish between union employees and managerial employees, but are relevant for any permanent employee holding a position in the classified service,” Clark wrote. “As such, both union employees and managerial employees are subject to a ‘just cause’ standard for termination.”
Clark’s termination was upheld by the Superior Court largely based on the claim of insubordination. Clark is arguing that this should never have been considered by the court because it wasn’t raised by the ERB, and that insubordination requires that a direct work order be knowingly violated by the employee.
“It was a legal error for the trial court to use a Black’s Law Dictionary definition for insubordination and to ignore the standard used by the State of Connecticut, as an employer, or the standard traditionally used for determining whether ‘just cause’ exists for discipline,” Clark wrote. “As a result of this error, the trial court did not require proof that DRS had provided a clear and specific order to Clark prior to her actions, nor did it require proof that DRS had provided Clark with notice of the penalty for failing to comply with such an order.”
The state requirements around progressive discipline are often used to overturn disciplinary measures and terminations of state employees, often with a labor union, contract, and arbitration decision backing their efforts.
Central Connecticut State University recently paid over $760,000 in back pay to Christopher Dukes, an employee and union member terminated by the university following a stand-off with police and arrest. The Supreme Court found CCSU union contract provided for “progressive discipline,” and overturned a lower court’s ruling that vacated an arbitration decision and upheld Dukes’ termination.
Clark had previously received a $40,000 settlement from DRS over her claims of a hostile work environment stemming from her interactions with Bucari, following an internal investigation that found he had “exercised poor judgement” in his interactions with Clark and another employee.
Clark was earning nearly $111,000 in 2019 before she was terminated in 2020; Bucari remains in his position as First Assistant Commissioner and General Counsel for DRS, earning nearly $200,000 this year, according to the state’s open data website.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
