§ 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

866 chars

time-tested and reasonable. See, e.g., Longley v. State
          Employees Retirement Commission, 284 Conn. 149,
          166, 931 A.2d 890 (2007). To the extent that the question
          requires us to interpret Title VII, some deference is
          likewise owed to the EEOC’s reasonable interpretations
          of the federal law. See, e.g., Equal Employment Oppor-
          tunity Commission v. Commercial Office Products
          Co., 486 U.S. 107, 115, 108 S. Ct. 1666, 100 L. Ed. 2d 96
          (1988) (‘‘[I]t is axiomatic that the EEOC’s interpretation
          of Title VII, for which it has primary enforcement
          responsibility, need not be the best one by grammatical
          or any other standards. Rather, the EEOC’s interpreta-
          tion of ambiguous language need only be reasonable
          to be entitled to deference.’’).

Other Sections in This Document (128)

Full Text