Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 46a-58

Citation
§ 46a-58
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

2,688 chars
plaints of discriminatory practices. Perhaps most signif-
          icant, the commission’s presiding officer is charged
          with making a finding that the discriminatory practice
          alleged has occurred and with supporting that determi-
          nation by written findings of fact. See General Statutes
          § 46a-86 (a).
              Finally, with regard to remedies, General Statutes
          (Supp. 2012) § 46a-86 (c) provides in relevant part that,
          ‘‘[i]n addition to any other action taken under this sec-
          tion, upon a finding of a discriminatory practice prohib-
          ited by section 46a-58 . . . the presiding officer shall
          determine the damage suffered by the complainant . . .
          as a result of such discriminatory practice and shall
          allow reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. . . .’’ The
          statutory scheme, then, plainly envisions that the com-
          mission is competent to determine whether federal anti-
          discrimination laws, such as Title VII, that come within
          the scope of § 46a-58 (a) have been violated and is
          authorized to award damages and attorney’s fees for
          those violations under § 46a-86 (c).
            Nor is there any question that a violation of Title VII
          as a factual predicate of a § 46a-58 (a) violation was
          established in the present case. In addition to violations
          of Connecticut’s employment discrimination statute,
          § 46a-60, the complainant alleged in her complaint that
          the branch discriminated against her on the basis of
          sex and subjected her to an ongoing hostile work envi-
          ronment, in violation of ‘‘Title VII of the Civil Rights
          Act of 1964 . . . as amended and enforced under [§]
          46a-58 (a) . . . .’’ Relying on Pik-Kwik Stores, Inc. v.
          Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 170
          Conn. 327, 331, 365 A.2d 1210 (1976), and its progeny,
          the referee treated federal and state antidiscrimination
          law as largely ‘‘coextensive,’’10 and she proceeded on
             10
                Although the referee observed in passing that § 46a-60 is ‘‘undoubtedly
          more expansive than Title VII’’; (internal quotation marks omitted); her
          citation to Patino v. Birken Mfg. Co., 304 Conn. 679, 693, 41 A.3d 1013
          (2012), for that proposition indicates that she understood the state law to
          afford broader protection only with respect to which classes are protected.
April 26, 2022                CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                  Page 45