§ 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

2,385 chars

this subchapter. . . .’’ The branch contends that the
          statute confers jurisdiction exclusively on courts, and
          thus not administrative agencies, to formally resolve
          Title VII claims. The argument is without merit.
             To begin with, the branch relies on a non sequitur
          insofar as the commission has never purported to adju-
          dicate Title VII claims under the authority of 42 U.S.C.
          § 2000e-5 (f). That statute, after all, does nothing more
          than confer jurisdiction on the federal courts to hear
          Title VII cases and to award the statutory remedies
          authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (g). Neither it nor
          any other federal statute or regulation prevents a state
          from enacting legislation, such as § 46a-58 (a), that
          deems a violation of Title VII to be a violation of state
          antidiscrimination law, or from attaching remedial con-
          sequences to such a violation, or conferring authority
          on a state agency to decide such claims in the first
          instance and to issue corresponding remedies. In fact,
          Title VII contains a savings clause providing that the
          federal act does not preempt state antidiscrimination
          law. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-7 (2018) (‘‘[n]othing in this
          subchapter shall be deemed to exempt or relieve any
          person from any liability, duty, penalty, or punishment
          provided by any present or future law of any State or
          political subdivision of a State, other than any such law
          which purports to require or permit the doing of any
          act which would be an unlawful employment practice
          under this subchapter’’).
             The United States Supreme Court has already
          rejected the argument that the authority to resolve
          alleged Title VII violations is limited by the conferral of
          jurisdiction in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (f) to federal district
          courts. Although the branch focuses on the fact that
          the statute authorizes the filing of a civil action in a
          court, the language in § 2000e-5 (f) expressly confers
          authority over Title VII claims only on federal district
Page 48                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         April 26, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (128)

Full Text