HARTFORD, Conn. — The state Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered an unprecedented investigation that could lead to the removal or suspension of Superior Court Judge Alice Bruno, who has collected as much as $400,000 in salary while missing nearly 2 1/2 years of work for what she describes as health-related reasons.
The justices appointed Robert Devlin, the retired judge and federal prosecutor recently appointed as the state’s new Inspector General, to direct the investigation. He is given broad powers, including the authority to collect all of Bruno’s personnel and health records and order her to submit to further medical examinations, the ruling says. The order also requires all judges and judicial branch employees to cooperate with Devlin, something one judge called “significant and unprecedented.”
Bruno, 66, has been involved in a strange standoff for more than three years with the judges of the state judicial branch over her attendance and performance at work. The branch contends her prolonged absence while collecting a salary violates the code of judicial conduct by, among other things, undermining public confidence in the judiciary. She claims she has become incapacitated by an undisclosed health condition that has been aggravated by years of antagonism by senior administrators in the court system.
The standoff has started discussion among lawyers, judges and others about how judges are appointed and, once appointed, how they are held accountable. The Supreme Court’s intervention in the standoff is taking place as the legislature once again embarks on the mostly secret process of appointing a large number of Superior Court nominees chosen by Gov. Ned Lamont. The legislature’s judiciary committee approved 22 new judges earlier this year and Lamont is expected to submit another 10 nominees before the session ends in early May.
The Supreme Court decided last year to take charge of the Bruno case and decide what, if any, discipline is appropriate. It is the first time the court has embarked on a process that could lead to dismissal of a judge, a constitutional position with protections greater than those of civil service employees.
Under the high court’s order, Devlin is permitted to appoint assistants to work on the investigation, all of whom will have access to the volumes of sealed records and medical reports already on file.
“In addition, the Office of the Chief Court Administrator, all Connecticut judges, and all judicial branch employees, shall promptly and fully cooperate with the investigator and his designees in connection with the investigation, and shall provide to them any records or other information upon request,” the order states.
Bruno, who remains a salaried judge in spite of her years-long absence, also is ordered to “fully and promptly cooperate with the Investigation” including requests by Devlin or his staff for interviews, records in possession of third parties, and records in possession of the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and the state Judicial Review Council.
Bruno previously filed a complaint with the Commission of Human Rights and Opportunities, claiming that she is being discriminated against on the basis of a disability because administrators of the court system will not accommodate her by providing her with a stress-free work environment. Chief Court Administrator Patrick Carroll was required by law to refer Bruno to the Judicial Review Council, the secretive agency that adjudicates routine complaints against judges, when she refused his request to submit to an independent medical examination.
Should Bruno fail to comply with the Supreme Court order, she will face “further disciplinary proceedings,” according to the order.
Devlin is instructed to keep the investigation secret and submit his findings when complete to the justices, who will decide at that point what further steps are required. One section of the court’s order gives Devlin the authority to explore “alterative resolutions to the issues underlying this investigation,” a suggestion that he can negotiate Bruno’s resignation.
The justices declined to discuss the order. Bruno’s lawyer, Jacques Parenteau, said she will cooperate.
“I think we are in an unprecedented area here,” Parenteau said. “Judge Bruno fully intends to comply with the order of the court.”
Bruno and the judges of the state judicial branch have been at odds for years over her attendance and job performance, according to internal agency correspondence. The precise nature of the dispute remains something of a mystery, because records and correspondence describing the medical condition or conditions underlying the disagreement are sealed.
She last reported to work on Nov. 14, 2019. In a filing with the court, she claims “the stressful work environment related to the hostility toward my medical conditions and appointments to treat ongoing health issues reached a peak” two weeks before then, when she left work to see her primary care physician about an undisclosed medical condition. By that point, the judicial branch administration had become concerned about absences by her and other judges and had initiated an audit.
Bruno alleged in the filing that, “While I was in the doctor’s office Judge (Anna) Ficeto continued the harassment directed by Chief Court Administrator Carroll in leaving a voice mail on my phone that was critical of my taking time to attend to health issues.”
According to Bruno, Ficeto, who was supervising the Waterbury Courthouse, said she had become aware from a colleague that Bruno was taking a week off for medical purposes. Ficeto asked Bruno to provide a medical note.
“… So you just need to be aware of the fact that your attendance, your doctor’s appointments and all those things are being scrutinized at every level. I understand you’ve got doctor’s appointments coming up, once again they’re in the middle of the day,” the affidavit recounts Ficeto as saying on the voicemail. “You keep digging this hole for yourself Alice, I don’t know how many ways to tell you that what you’re doing is not acceptable. Call me when you get a chance. …. Thank you.”
Bruno, appointed by former Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, submitted a letter from her doctor on Nov. 26, 2019, and said she would be back at work Dec. 11, 2019. But she submitted another note before then, saying she was unable to return to work, the affidavit says.
In her affidavit, Bruno claims that at one point the judicial branch proposed having her return to work in Waterbury — which is relatively close to her home, but also where Ficeto was working — as a proposed accommodation. Bruno said she rejected the offer because Ficeto allegedly had been hostile to her in the past, apart from what Bruno said she considered to be the antagonistic voice message.
“For example, after I was appointed to Waterbury Judicial District she would not say hello to me when passing me in building,” Bruno wrote.
Bruno said what she claimed was mistreatment by colleagues began as early as 2015.
“I was assigned to domestic violence docket in the Judicial District of Hartford in July of 2015,” she wrote, also claiming she “was forced to work with a high temperature and fever because Chief Court Administrator told me that I could not take time off.
“It was also during this assignment that I was informed that I could not schedule doctor’s appointments on Monday or Friday, or even during the workday. As will be seen these unreasonable restrictions on my ability to obtain medical treatment eventually caused me to experience severe, physical stress and mental distress that resulted in hospitalization for cardiac distress symptoms in November of 2019,” she wrote.
____
