§ 46a-58

Citation: § 46a-58
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

2,380 chars

award emotional distress damages and attorney’s fees
          in an employment discrimination action under § 46a-58
          (a) and that statute’s civil remedies provision, § 46a-86
          (c). The branch agrees with the conclusion of the trial
          court that, under this court’s decision in Truelove, the
          commission may adjudicate state law employment dis-
          crimination claims only under the auspices of § 46a-60
          (which specifically prohibits employment discrimina-
          tion) and not under § 46a-58 (a) (which prohibits dis-
          crimination more broadly). See Commission on Human
          Rights & Opportunities v. Truelove & Maclean, Inc.,
          supra, 238 Conn. 346. The branch contends, however,
          that the trial court incorrectly concluded that, to the
          extent that violations of § 46a-60 also run afoul of Title
          VII, the commission has the authority to address such
          violations of federal law as a factual predicate of a
          § 46a-58 (a) claim. The branch’s position is that, under
          federal law, a state administrative agency such as the
          commission can assist the federal Equal Employment
          Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in investigating a
          Title VII employment discrimination claim, but only a
          court ultimately can resolve the claim on the merits and
          award damages and attorney’s fees. We are not per-
          suaded.
                                             A
             Whether the commission has the authority to identify
          violations of Title VII and to award damages for those
          violations under state law presents a legal question that
          we review de novo. See id., 345. To the extent that the
          issue requires us to interpret the commission’s enabling
          statutes and the state antidiscrimination laws that the
          commission is responsible for enforcing, we accord
          deference to the agency’s formally articulated interpre-
          tation of those statutes when that interpretation is both
          control the outcome in the present case, and we therefore have no need to
          consider whether it should be overruled. See part I B 2 of this opinion.
Page 42                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        April 26, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (128)

Full Text