Shortt v. New Milford Police Department

550 A.2d 1085, 209 Conn. 817, 1988 Conn. LEXIS 343
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided October 14, 1988·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 16 Conn. App. 232, is granted, limited to the following issues:

Jeffrey B. Sienkiewicz, in support of the petition. Janet Bond Arterton, in opposition. Decided October 14, 1988

“1. Did the Appellate Court err in concluding that the plaintiff police officer had an independent statutory right for collection of unpaid wages, costs and attorney’s fees under § 31-72 of the Connecticut General Statutes when neither his entitlement to wages nor the amount thereof had been determined under the grievance procedure contained in the collective bargaining agreement?

“2. Did the Appellate Court err in holding that § 31-72 of the Connecticut General Statutes was applicable to the defendant as an ‘employer’ within the statutory definition of that term contained in General Statutes § 31-71a (1)?”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Shortt v. New Milford Police Department, 550 A.2d 1085, 209 Conn. 817, 1988 Conn. LEXIS 343 (Colo. 1988).

550 A.2d 1085 (Shortt v. New Milford Police Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shortt v. New Milford Police Department
562 A.2d 7 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1989)