Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)

Citation: Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
Parent Document: Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2022-04-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6462677/connecticut-judicial-branch-v-gilbert/ ↗

Full Text

3,920 chars

343 Conn. 90                     APRIL, 2022                                   95
                                Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert
                 and the appropriate remedy was to remand the matter to the commission
                 for additional briefing, to hold a new hearing, and to potentially craft
                 a more narrowly tailored injunction: § 46a-86 (a) clearly grants the com-
                 mission the authority to issue reasonable injunctive relief tailored to
                 eliminating discriminatory practices and their effects, and, although M’s
                 retirement in 2020 eliminated the possibility that G and M might be
                 assigned to the same courthouse, the primary purpose of reinstating an
                 employee who is transferred after complaining of sexual harassment,
                 such as G, is to vindicate the important public policy against punishing
                 victims who report abuse, and that purpose was served by the referee’s
                 order regardless of M’s retirement; moreover, even though the referee
                 did not expressly find that G’s transfers were retaliatory in nature, the
                 referee’s factual findings overwhelmingly pointed to a retaliatory animus
                 and an implicit determination that the transfers were pretextual, and
                 the trial court’s assumption that G was not transferred on the basis of
                 retaliatory intent was therefore contrary to the referee’s factual findings;
                 furthermore, if the branch did seek to retaliate or to resolve the pattern
                 of harassment by transferring G to a less convenient location while
                 allowing M to remain at the courthouse where the harassment occurred,
                 it was irrelevant that, under ordinary circumstances, the branch, as the
                 employer, has the discretion where to assign judicial marshals, and
                 allowing G to return to her original workplace was the preferred means
                 of vindicating the policy against punishing victims who report abuse,
                 and, to the extent that logistical considerations and the branch’s opera-
                 tional needs are relevant to fashioning proper relief, this court instructed
                 that, before ordering the branch to reinstate G, on remand, the referee
                 must consider factors such as whether the branch’s previous relocation
                 of G to other courthouses departed from the norms applied to other
                 marshals, whether the impact of keeping G at the original courthouse
                 on the operational needs of the branch outweighs the benefit to G of
                 being assigned to a courthouse closer to her home, and whether reinstat-
                 ing G will require the reassignment of other employees; in addition,
                 insofar as the trial court had been concerned about the apparently
                 unbounded nature of the injunction issued by the referee, this court
                 instructed that, on remand, the referee should clarify the scope and
                 duration of the injunction, whether the extent of the branch’s misconduct
                 and the balancing of the equities warrant a permanent injunction preclud-
                 ing the branch from reassigning G, if a permanent injunction is not
                 warrant, at what point or under what circumstances the injunction will
                 expire, and whether, during the course of the injunction, the branch
                 may continue to assign G to other courthouses on a short-term basis
                 consistent with its operational needs.
                     Argued January 15, 2021—officially released April 26, 2022 Procedural History

Other Sections in This Document (128)

Full Text