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

2,462 chars
Again, the branch misses the mark. The foregoing
          discussion demonstrates that the absence of EEOC
          authority to formally adjudicate Title VII claims does
          not indicate an intention to bar state agencies from
          identifying Title VII violations for purposes of determin-
          ing whether state law has been violated. Indeed, Con-
          gress has expressed a strong preference for resolving
          matters that concurrently violate Title VII and state
          employment discrimination laws at the state level, with
          recourse to federal court provided as a supplemental
          rather than a preferred venue. As the United States
          Supreme Court explained in New York Gaslight Club,
          Inc. v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54, 100 S. Ct. 2024, 64 L. Ed. 2d
          723 (1980), ‘‘throughout Title VII the word ‘proceeding’
          . . . is used to refer to all the different types of proceed-
          ings in which the statute is enforced, state and federal,
          administrative and judicial.’’ Id., 62–63. ‘‘Initial resort
          to state and local remedies is mandated, and recourse
          to the federal forums is appropriate only when the
          [s]tate does not provide prompt or complete relief.’’
          Id., 65. ‘‘Title VII explicitly leaves the [s]tates free, and
          indeed encourages them, to exercise their regulatory
          power over discriminatory employment practices. Title
          VII merely provides a supplemental right to sue in fed-
          eral court if satisfactory relief is not obtained in state
          forums.’’ Id., 67.
             This sentiment pervades the legislative history of
          Title VII. During the legislative debates, both supporters
          and opponents of Title VII repeatedly expressed the
          view that the proposed legislation was predicated on
          the assumption that the nearly thirty states with func-
          tional fair employment practices laws and agencies (pri-
          marily northern and western states) generally could be
          relied on to enforce antidiscrimination law in those
          locations, and that the new federal agency, the EEOC,
          would focus its efforts and limited resources on enforc-
          ing the law in the states of the old Confederacy, which
Page 50                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                              April 26, 2022