Amadasun v. Armstrong, Town Clerk of South Windsor

The plaintiff, a candidate for town council in the November, 2025 South Windsor municipal election, appealed from the trial court's judgment dis- missing his action brought pursuant to the statutes (§§ 9-328 and 9-371b) affording a candidate who is aggrieved by any ruling of any election official in connection with a municipal election or referendum, respectively, expe- dited judicial review of his or her claims. In the November, 2025 municipal election, South Windsor electors approved, by way of referendum, several revisions to the South Windsor charter, one of which changed the maxi- mum number of individuals affiliated with a particular political party who could serve on the nine member town council from six individuals to a bare majority of five. During that election, electors also voted for town council candidates, with six Democratic Party candidates receiving more votes than any Republican Party candidate. The plaintiff received the sixth highest vote total of the Democratic candidates, and B received the fourth highest vote total of the Republican candidates. Following the election, the defendant, the South Windsor town clerk, determined that the bare majority charter revision, as approved in the referendum, applied to the 2025 town council election, even though the minutes from a meeting of the South Windsor Charter Revision Commission at which the commission proposed the bare majority charter revision indicated that the revision, if approved, would not take effect until the November, 2027 South Windsor municipal election. The town clerk thereupon issued a preliminary list of election winners, declaring that B, rather than the plaintiff, had won the final seat on the town council. The plaintiff claimed in the trial court that he was aggrieved by the town clerk's decision to apply the bare majority charter revision in determining which candidates had won the November, 2025 town council election. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the town clerk's decision was not a ruling of an election official within the meaning of §§ 9-328 and 9-371b. On appeal from the trial court's judgment of dismissal, the plaintiff claimed that the trial court incorrectly had concluded that the town clerk's application of the bare majority charter revision to determine the results of the November, 2025 town council election was not a ruling of an election official for purposes of §§ 9-328 and 9-371b. Held: The trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and, accordingly, this court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The town clerk's decision to apply the newly approved bare majority charter revision, rather than the provisions of the charter that purportedly were in effect on the day of the November, 2025 municipal election, to determine the composition of the town council from that same election constituted a ruling of an election official for purposes of §§ 9-328 and 9-371b. Amadasun v. Armstrong, Town Clerk of South Windsor The town clerk was required to determine the winners of the town council election pursuant to statute (§ 9-167a (c)) and to report those winners to the secretary of the state pursuant to statute (§ 9-320 (a)), and the fact that these two statutory directives are codified in title 9 of the General Statutes strongly suggested that they are electoral in nature. The town clerk, in deciding that the bare majority charter revision was applicable to the November, 2025 municipal election, necessarily interpreted the South Windsor charter in order to determine the effective date of that revision, which, in turn, directly affected the accuracy of the results that the town clerk determined under § 9-167a (c) and reported under § 9-320 (a). Moreover, the town clerk's resolution of a question about the applicability of a charter revision to the town council candidates elected simultaneously with the approval of that revision is within the purpose of the election con- test statutes, and the town clerk's decision to apply the newly approved bare majority charter revision ultimately dictated the answer to the question of who won the election. Argued January 13—officially released February 17, 2026

Q: What were the main allegations made by Ms. Amadasun?

Ms. Amadasun alleged that she was wrongfully terminated and subjected to a hostile work environment due to her race and national origin, claiming her supervisor made discriminatory remarks and she was treated unfairly.

Q: What was the Town Clerk's defense?

The Town Clerk argued that Ms. Amadasun's termination was based on legitimate performance issues and not on any discriminatory reasons.

Q: What was the court's final decision?

The court ruled in favor of the Town Clerk, finding that Ms. Amadasun did not provide enough evidence to support her claims of discrimination and that the town's actions were based on her job performance.

Q: What legal standard did the court apply to Ms. Amadasun's claims?

The court applied the standard requiring Ms. Amadasun to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and to show that the town's stated reasons for termination were a pretext for discrimination.

Connecticut Supreme Court Opinions employment discriminationracial discriminationhostile work environmentwrongful termination ct Jurisdiction Know Your Rights: employment discriminationKnow Your Rights: racial discriminationKnow Your Rights: hostile work environment Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2026 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings employment discrimination Guideracial discrimination Guide employment discrimination Topic Hubracial discrimination Topic Hubhostile work environment Topic Hub