Case Name: THOMASINA BULGER v. JAMES LIEBERMAN
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1995-12-05
Citations: 39 Conn. App. 772
Docket Number: 13832
Parties: THOMASINA BULGER v. JAMES LIEBERMAN
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 772–773

Head Matter:
THOMASINA BULGER v. JAMES LIEBERMAN
(13832)
Dupont, C. J., and O’Connell and Lavery, Js.
Argued November 2
decision released December 5, 1995
Anthony A. Piazza, with whom, on the brief, was Wesley M. Malowitz, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Joyce H. Young, assistant town attorney, for the appellee (defendant).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this action based on the wrongful termination of employment, the plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The trial court based its decision on the doctrine of collateral estoppel because the issue of wrongful termination was previously litigated in binding arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. We conclude that the issues in this case are governed by Corey v. Avco-Lycoming Division, 163 Conn. 309, 318, 307 A.2d 155 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1116, 93 S. Ct. 903, 34 L. Ed. 2d 699 (1973), and do not fall within the exceptions explicated in Genovese v. Gallo Wine Merchants, Inc., 226 Conn. 475, 628 A.2d 946 (1993).
Accordingly, the general rule outlined in Corey controls, and the factual determinations made in final and binding arbitration are given preclusive effect. See Bus-coni v. Dighello, 39 Conn. App. 753, 766-68, 668 A.2d 716 (1995). The arbitration panel's unanimous decision that the plaintiff resigned from her employment with the town is binding on her under the doctrine of collateral estoppel and is dispositive of the issues alleged in this case.
The judgment is affirmed.