Safely Serving Our Clients: We are open & available to assist existing & potential clients with their legal matter via phone or video conference.
3127 Whitney Avenue | Hamden, Connecticut 06518
IN THE MATTER OF:
MICHAEL RINALDI, INDIVIDUAL GRIEVANT AND STAMFORD ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT, CORORATE GRIEVANT
TAMU LUCERO, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS AND ROBERT A. STACY, ESQ., SPHR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES, INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS AND STAMFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, CORPORATE RESPONDENT
APRIL 7, 2020
Pursuant to Article 18 (“Grievance Procedure”) of the current collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter, “Agreement”) between the Stamford Board of Education (hereinafter, “Board”) and the Stamford Administrative Unit (hereinafter, “SAU”), the Grievants herein hereby complain and say that there has been an abuse, violation, misinterpretation or misapplication by the Respondents, their agents, officers and employees, of specific provisions of the Agreement; to wit: Article 1 (“Board Rights”) and Article 17 (“Protection of Administrators”), paragraph B.
In furtherance of the foregoing, the Grievants represent that at all times pertinent hereto:
Violation of Board Policy
Violation of the Connecticut Code of Professional Responsibility for Administrators
… As a result of the findings above, I have determined that just cause exists to mete out discipline as follows. (sic)
(1) You will be suspended without pay for three (3) days. …
(2) You are directed to work with your Associate Superintendent to create a professional growth plan designed to address concerns regarding your leadership, professional judgment, and any related matters. …
(3) You are required to undergo training on the role and use of social media … .” (See, Proposed Exhibit B).
Insubordination and Violation of Board Policy
Violation of the “Code of Responsibility of Administrators”
1) That the Corporate Respondent and the Individual Respondents, individually and in their representative capacities, cease and desist from violating the Agreement, Board policy and Board regulation, state and federal constitutions, and other state laws as heretofore set forth;
2) That any papers, documents, reports, investigations, emails, anecdotal or personnel notes/letters pertaining to the Individual Grievant, this grievance and the disciplinary memo (Proposed Exhibit B) be expunged from the Individual Grievant’s “personnel file,” wherever geographically located in the School District, including but not limited to, the Individual Respondents’ respective offices and those of assistant superintendents, to the extent permitted by law, or by having noted thereon, that they are null and void, of no force and effect, and that they shall not be introduced or relied upon in any future proceedings, evaluations or actions involving the Individual Grievant, including for professional advancement or for purposes of “progressive discipline”;
3) That the Individual Respondents cease and desist from harassing the Individual Grievant;
4) That the Individual Respondents cease and desist from treating the Individual Grievant disparately;
5) That the Individual Grievant be made whole, including lost wages, and the status quo ante restored, by rescinding his three day suspension, mandating the development of a leadership and professional judgment growth plan, and training on the role and use of social media;
6) Such other and further relief as may appertain in equity and at law.
MICHAEL RINALDI, INDIVIDUAL GRIEVANT
STAMFORD ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT, CORPORATE GRIEVANT
BY: JOHN M. GESMONDE, Their Attorney
 First Amendment provides: “Congress shall pass no law … abridging the freedom of speech … .”
 Section 4 states that: “Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.”
 Connecticut General Statutes §31-48d requires employers engaged in electronic monitoring to give prior notice to employees.
 Connecticut General Statutes §31-51q imposes liability on the employer for discipline of an employee on account of employee’s exercise of certain constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech.
 “A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when: … (2) with intent to harass, annoy or harm another person, he communicates with a person by … mail … by computer network … or by any other form of written communication in a matter likely to cause annoyance or alarm.
 Darcy v. Plainville Sch. Dist., 2017 Conn. Super. LEXIS 4186 at p. 3.
Thank you. Your submission has been sent.
Gesmonde, Pietrosimone & Sgrignari, L.L.C. is located in Hamden, CT and serves clients in and around North Haven, Hamden, Waterbury, Bethany, Milford, Wallingford, Prospect, Woodbridge, Northford, Madison, Beacon Falls, Branford, Cheshire, North Branford, East Haven, Naugatuck, Meriden, Ansonia and New Haven County.
Attorney Advertising. This website is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. [ Site Map ]
Martindale-Hubbell and martindale.com are registered trademarks; AV, BV, AV Preeminent and BV Distinguished are registered certification marks; Lawyers.com and the Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rated Icon are service marks; and Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings are trademarks of MH Sub I, LLC, used under license. Other products and services may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies. Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved.