HARTFORD, Conn. (Legal Newsline) - A Connecticut state university must reinstate the director of student conduct, who was fired after he was arrested for domestic violence in an incident where he allegedly threatened to kill himself and his wife and refused to allow police into his home.
The administrator’s union sued the state, arguing there was no reason for him to be disciplined for off-duty conduct, and the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed. Central Connecticut State University argued his arrest violated the school’s code of conduct and reinstating him to a position involving student safety would violate public policy.
But the Supreme Court said the state “could not point to an explicit, well-defined public policy that mandated termination.”
Christopher Dukes was in charge of student conduct at CCSU and was fired in 2018 after his wife left the house and called police, saying he had threatened her and their children. He was arrested on kidnapping, strangulation, assault and other charges. But after police obtained evidence contradicting some of his wife’s claims, prosecutors dropped all charges in 2019.
The Connecticut State University Organization of Administrative Faculty, AFSCME, contested his firing and presented evidence Dukes had participated in a domestic violence offender program and the university had no history of firing employees for off-duty arrest. The union cited two cases where employees were arrested for public indecency, including a professor, and the university’s president was arrested for impersonating a police officer.
The arbitrator concluded the university did not have just cause for firing Dukes. The state appealed and a trial court reversed the arbitrators award. The union appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which ordered Dukes reinstated.
"We are acutely aware of the real and all too common risks of domestic violence and the importance of allowing courts to issue protective orders in an expedited fashion in an effort to provide relief for abuse victims,” Justice Raheem Mullins wrote for the majority.
“Bearing this in mind, however, we cannot conclude that the state has met its burden of demonstrating that reinstatement of the grievant is necessarily incompatible with the public policy of protecting victims of domestic violence.”