Page 33 - CLT070620

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JULY 6, 2020 ¦ 33

defendant breached the parties’ contract in ter- plaintiff appealed the revocation, and the ap-
minating plaintiff without notice. Defendant peal was denied. Plaintiff then brought the
hired plaintiff in 2012 as its property manager. present action against the town appealing
Under the terms of the parties’ contract, plain- the decision. Plaintiff argued that the loca-
tiff was to receive a salary of $85,000 per year tions serve charitable services, but defendant
and health benefits. The contract provided that argued that the plaintiff is reimbursed by the
plaintiff was to be given both notice of, and state for those property taxes paid to the town
an opportunity to correct, any deficiencies in of Colchester. Plaintiff moved for summary
his performance. The contract had a two-year judgment, but the court denied the motion.
duration, which was later extended. In Octo- The court noted that there was a genuine issue
ber 2015, defendant promoted plaintiff to the of fact as to whether the state reimburses the
position of community association manager, plaintiff for the taxes.
under a two-year contract, at a higher salary
and with continued health benefits, to begin in
January 2016. In December 2015, defendant U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
notified plaintiff that his services were being
terminated. He was thereafter denied access
to defendant’s premises. Plaintiff sued defen- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
dant for breach of contract. The court ren-
dered judgment in favor of plaintiff, finding
that defendant breached the terms of both the Court Rejected Argument That Public
2012 and 2015 contracts. Defendant never pro- Act 17-2 Is Unconstitutional
vided plaintiff with notice and an opportunity
to correct any deficiencies, and denied plain- CASE: Colon de Mejias v. Lamont
tiff the salary and benefits due him under the COURT: U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit
2012 contract, which had not yet expired, and DOC. NO.: 18-3533
the 2015 contract, which was to commence in COURT OPINION BY: Hall
January 2016. Plaintiff was able to find a new DATE: June 23, 2020 • PAGES: 20
job in July 2016, paying less than the salary to
which he was entitled under his contract with Connecticut’s Public Act 17-2 transfers money
defendant. The new job also failed to provide from the state’s energy funds to the general
the health benefits plaintiff would have re- purpose fund. Plaintiffs are a group of indi-
ceived under his contract with defendant. The viduals, energy efficient businesses, and non-
court awarded plaintiff some $69,000 in back profit organizations that are all electricity
wages, plus an equivalent amount in penalties, ratepayers. They sued defendants, which in-
plus interest on the back wages and the value cluded the former governor and former state
of the lost health insurance. treasurer, claiming that the Act violates the
Contract Clause because it interferes with
tariffs. Both parties moved for summary
judgment, and the district court granted de-
TAX fendants’ motion. Plaintiffs appealed, and
the court affirmed. The court was to decide
Court Denies Summary Judgment whether the Act violated the federal Contract
In Property Tax Appeal For 501(c)(3) Clause and whether the taxpayer standing
Charitable Organization doctrine barred Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection
claim. As to the Contract Clause argument,
plaintiffs claimed that the Act impaired their
CASE: The Caring Cmty. of Connecticut, Inc. v. Town of Col- contractual rights to have the Energy Funds
chester spent on conservation and clean energy pro-
COURT: New Britain J.D. grams. The court disagreed, finding that there
DOC. NO.: CV- 16-6037378 was no contractual right to prevent the transfer
COURT OPINION BY: Aronson of money to the general purpose find. Plain-
DATE: June 08, 2020 • PAGES: 6
Plaintiff is a recognized 501(c)(3) corporation tiffs then argued that the Act assessed a tax
in Connecticut which owns 7 parcels located on electric distribution companies’ custom-
throughout Colchester. Prior to 2015, all 7 ers but not on municipal utilities’ customers
parcels were issued tax exemptions by the as- in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
sessor, however the exemptions were revoked, The court rejected that argument. It held that

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune