Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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)

Full Text

2,500 chars
courthouses, each of which was significantly farther from
          her residence. The complainant sought to hold the branch
          responsible for the alleged misconduct under three civil
          rights statutes: (1) Connecticut’s employment discrimi-
          nation statute, the Connecticut Fair Employment Prac-
          tices Act, General Statutes § 46a-60; (2) Connecticut’s
          general antidiscrimination statute, General Statutes § 46a-
          58 (a), which prohibits any person from depriving any
          other person of rights secured by law on account of
          the victim’s membership in a protected class; and (3)
          Title VII, as a predicate to a further violation of § 46a-
          58 (a).
              Following a public hearing before the commission,
          the referee found that the complainant’s allegations
          were substantiated, a finding that the branch does not
          contest in the present appeal. The referee awarded the
          complainant seven days of back pay for the work time
          she lost while attending the public hearing, as well as
          prejudgment and postjudgment interest on the back pay
          award, all pursuant to General Statutes (2012 Supp.)
          § 46a-86 (b),1 which provides remedies specifically for
          victims of discriminatory employment practices in vio-
          lation of § 46a-60.2 The referee also awarded the com-
          plainant $47,637 in attorney’s fees and $50,000 in emotional
          distress damages pursuant to § 46a-86 (c), which provides
          remedies for violations of, among other things, the gen-
          eral antidiscrimination statute, § 46a-58. Finally, the ref-
          eree granted injunctive relief, including an order that
          ‘‘[t]he [branch] shall give the complainant the option of
          returning to the Danielson courthouse.’’
            The branch brought an administrative appeal pursu-
          ant to General Statutes § 4-183 (a), in which it contended
            1
              Hereinafter, unless otherwise indicated, all references to § 46a-58 (a)
          are to the version in the 2012 supplement to the General Statutes. See
          footnote 3 of this opinion.
            2
              It is not clear from the record whether the referee ordered interest at
          a rate of 5 percent or 10 percent.
April 26, 2022                 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                    Page 39