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
Other Sections in This Document (128)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
Full Text
2,441 charsseq. (2018) (Title VII), and (2) the state has waived its
sovereign immunity with respect to prejudgment and
postjudgment interest awards for civil rights violations,
but also determined that (3) the award of emotional
distress damages must be vacated because of the com-
plainant’s failure to fully comply with the branch’s dis-
covery requests in the administrative proceeding, and
(4) the injunction reinstating the complainant to her
former workplace must be vacated as overbroad and
otherwise improper. The branch challenges the first two
determinations on appeal; the commission challenges
the latter two determinations on cross appeal. We affirm
the judgment of the trial court with respect to the Title
VII issue, reverse the judgment with respect to sover-
eign immunity, and remand the case for the referee to
conduct a new hearing in damages and, if appropriate,
to revisit the injunction reinstating the complainant to
her former workplace.
The following background facts and procedural his-
tory are relevant. In 2012, the complainant brought a
claim with the commission alleging that another judicial
marshal, Gordon Marco, subjected her to severe and
pervasive sexual harassment and unwanted sexual con-
tact, potentially rising to the level of sexual assault, at
various times between 2006 and 2012, while she was
stationed primarily at the Danielson courthouse. The
complainant alleged that the branch discriminated against
her on the basis of her gender by, among other things,
subjecting her to a hostile work environment, failing to
adequately investigate her allegations, and failing to
take adequate remedial steps to protect her. The com-
plainant also claimed that the branch had retaliated by
altering the conditions of her employment in response
to her complaint. Most prominently, she alleged that,
beginning in mid-2012, her supervisor, Russell Downer,
reassigned her from Danielson, where she had been
assigned since 2006, to the Willimantic and Putnam
Page 38 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL April 26, 2022