STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 1. Petitioner applied for $1,735,993.00 in annual tax credits in the 2009 Universal Application Cycle pursuant to Application No. 2009-255C to help finance the development of its project, a 100-unit apartment complex in Broward County, Florida. Petitioner’s application met all threshold requirements and received the maximum application score, the maximum proximity tie-breaker measurement points, and the maximum ability to proceed tie-breaker points. However, under Florida Housing’s ranking procedures, Petitioner’s application was not among those in the funding range in the final rankings adopted by Florida Housing.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Factual Background In 2008, Petitioner Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx began his employment with Bremerton High School (BHS) as a football coach in Kitsap County, Washington. Xxxxxxx v, Bremerton School District, 869 F.3d 813,815 (2017). Xxxxxxxxxx served as an assistant coach for the BHS varsity football team and as the head coach for the BHS junior varsity football team. R. 7;19. A vital part of Petitioner’s role as a coach at BHS required him to “communicate effectively” with parents, “maintain positive media relations” and abide “[b]y the Rules of Conduct before players and the public as expected of a Head Coach.” Id at 816. As a part of Petitioner’s contract he acted not only as a coach but was “ entrusted” to serve “[a]s, a mentor and role model for the student athletes.” Id. His contract also required that, “[a]xxxx all” else, he would endeavor not only “to create good athletes,” but also “good human beings.” Id. Petitioner’s contract expired at the end of every season. Id. at 815. Respondent Bremerton School District (BSD or the District) is responsible for 5,057 students and has a religiously diverse population as it is home to several different religions including Judaism, Islam, the Bahá’í faith, Buddhism, Hinduism Zoroastrianism and more. Id. Petitioner is a practicing Christian. R. 8; 27. He contends his religious beliefs require him to pray on the field where the game was played in order to give thanks. Xxxxxxx, 869 F.3d at 816. At the end of every game Petitioner kneels in prayer on the fifty-yard line for approximately thirty seconds of what he refers to as “brief, quiet religious expression” in BHS logoed apparel. Id. Petitioner’s prayers are verbal but do not specify a deity. R. 37. Petitioner asserts that his prayers recognize player safety, sportsmanship, and spirited competition. R. 99; 12.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. [2] This is an appeal from the district court’s Judgment on July 3, 2012, dismissing with prejudice Petitioners’ Petition for Interpretation or Reformation of Trusts. (App. at 31-32). This case concerns living settlors who provided undisputed testimony that their intent at the time of creating the trusts in dispute was for the trusts to only benefit their lineal descendants. The settlors believed the terms of the trusts had the legal effect of ensuring that only their lineal descendants would benefit from the trusts. (Tr. at 35, 82). Subsequently, the settlors were informed their ex-son-in-law’s children from a subsequent marriage could potentially receive trust assets under the terms of the trusts. The settlors petitioned the district court to reform the trusts to conform with the settlors’ undisputed original intent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. A. The Facts of the Case The respondent City of New London occupies 5.79 square miles at the junction of the Thames River and Long Island Sound in southeastern Connecticut. (Joint Appendix, (“X.X.”) 91, 93). New London, which is geographically the second smallest of the 169 municipalities in Connecticut, was once a center of the whaling industry and later a manufacturing hub. (X.X. 91, 93, 303). However, New London has suffered through decades of economic decline. (Appendix to Petition for Certiorari, (“Pet. App.”) 196, 272- 73). Staggering economic woes – which include an unem- ployment rate close to double that of the rest of the state, a shrinking population, a dearth of new home and business construction and the departure of one of the region’s princi- pal employers – caused the State of Connecticut Office of Planning and Management (OPM) to designate New London a “distressed municipality”. (X.X. 239, 253, 298, 303-04; Pet. App. 70-71, 272-73). In addition, local property taxes are the main source of municipal funding in Connecti- cut, but 54 percent of New London’s land is tax-exempt. (X.X. 91).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The issue in this case is whether a student intern (the grievant) serving under a term appointment may grieve the Agency’s decision not to convert her to a permanent position at the end of her appointment. Although Arbitrator Xxxxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx found that the Agency had violated the grievant’s contractual and statutory due-process rights in processing her “termination,”1 we find that the Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to resolve the grievance in the first place. And we take this opportunity to clarify that, like probationary employees, term appointees and similar time-limited appointees may not file grievances challenging an agency’s decision concerning extending, converting, or ending their employment.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
