cited with approval in Rado v. Board of Education, 216 Conn. 541, 555, 583 A.2d 102 [1990]
How later courts described this case
- cited with approval in Rado v. Board of Education, 216 Conn. 541, 555, 583 A.2d 102 [1990]
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*583 Cotteb, C. J.
(dissenting). The majority holds that “the action of the board in terminating the plaintiff’s contract of employment was not warranted and thus arbitrary and illegal.” I cannot agree.
When acting to terminate a teacher’s employment contract, a board of education acts, as an administrative agency, in a quasi-judicial capacity. Mauriello v. Board of Education, 176 Conn. 466, 469 , 408 A.2d 247 ; Miller v. Board of Education, 166 Conn. 189, 191 , 348 A.2d 584 . As such, it exercises discretion in weighing evidence, judging credibility of witnesses, finding faets and making conclusions. Light v. Board of Education, 170 Conn. 35, 40 , 364 A.2d 229 ; Conley v. Board of Education, 143 Conn. 488, 492 , 123 A.2d 747 . On the other hand, the function of the court on appeal is to determine whether the board acted illegally; “and while we have frequently added the words ‘arbitrarily or in abuse of its discretion,’ this manner of expression merely points to certain aspects in which the illegality may subsist because the conduct of the board would be in violation of the powers granted to and duties imposed upon it.” Jaffe v. State Department of Health, 135 Conn. 339, 353 , 64 A.2d 330 ; Conley v. Board of Education, supra, 492.
Since the termination of the plaintiff in the present case clearly cannot be said to be in violation of the board’s legal powers or duties, the majority’s conclusion that this “exceedingly excessive punishment . . . was not warranted” amounts to an improper substitution of this court’s judgment for that of the board. I would find error in the trial court’s judgment on that ground alone and remand the case with direction to dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal.