. . . .
The failure to place the plaintiff's name on the reemployment list for those laid off and to have hired her from it cannot be considered in excess of statutory authority because the plaintiff lost her job due to a disability as opposed to a lack of work. While the plaintiff's position was not held for her while on her last medical leave of absence, it remained open and she could have been placed in it if she was able to return to public works' financial management unit. The position was lost to public works only after the plaintiff's separation from state service. A layoff is for "any cause other than disability, delinquency, incompetency, misconduct or neglect of duty . . . ." General Statutes § 5-241(a); Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 5-241-2. A layoff is a separation from state service by reason of the state's economic situation as opposed to disability. Sullivan v. Morgan, 160 Conn. 176, 183, 276 A.2d 899 (1970). State employees who have been laid off, unlike those state employees who are separated from service due to a disability, are entitled to the placement of their names on the reemployment list for laid off employees. General Statutes § 5-241; Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 5-241-2. The defendants, then, acted in compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations.
. . . .
The plaintiff's construction of the State Personnel Act fails to read its provisions as a whole and is contrary to its terms. The defendants would have acted in excess of their statutory authority only if they had put the plaintiff's name on the reemployment list for laid off employees and rehired her from that list because that would have been in violation of the State Personnel Act. This is factually distinguishable from Cox v. Aiken, 86 Conn. App. 587, 590, 862 A.2d 319 (2004), cert. granted on other grounds, 273 Conn. 916, 871 A.2d 370 (2005), where the plaintiff alleged that the state acted in excess of statutory authority when it laid off a state employee with less seniority than Cox in violation of § 5-241.
. . . .
Sec. 67-11. Table of Authorities; Citation of Cases
(a) In the table of authorities, citations to state cases shall be to the official reporter first, if available, followed by the regional reporter. Citations to cases from jurisdictions having no official reporter shall identify the court rendering the decision. Citations to opinions of the United States Supreme Court shall be to the United States Reports, if therein; otherwise, such citations shall be to the Supreme Court Reporter, the Lawyer's Edition, or United States Law Week, in that order of preference.
(b) In the argument portion of a brief, citations to Connecticut cases shall be to the official reporter only. Citations to other state cases may be to either the official reporter or the regional reporter. United States Supreme Court cases should be cited as they appear in the table of authorities.
(c) If a case is not available in print and is available on an electronic database, such as LEXIS. Westlaw, CaseBase or LOIS, the case shall be cited to that database. In the table of authorities, citations to such cases shall include the case name; docket number; name of the database and, if applicable, numeric identifiers unique to the database; court name; and full date of the disposition of the case. Screen, page or paragraph numbers shall be preceded by an asterisk. In the argument portion of a brief, such cases shall be cited only by name and database. If such a case is published in a print reporter after the filing of the party's brief, but prior to the case on appeal being orally argued or submitted for decision on the record and briefs, the party who cited the unreported case shall, by letter, inform the chief clerk of the print citation of that case.
. . . .