§ 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)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
Full Text
3,145 charshad not seen fit to create their own fair employment
practices agencies.13 The primary sponsors of the legis-
lation made numerous statements indicating their strong
preference for resolving discrimination claims at the
state level and emphasizing the central role that they
envisioned state fair employment practices agencies
would play in the enforcement of the federal law.14 The
branch is therefore incorrect when it posits that there
is no reason why Congress would permit state adminis-
trative agencies, but not the EEOC, to resolve claims
based on violations of Title VII. During the debates over
Title VII in 1964, and again with respect to the 1972
amendments, the primary argument levied against giv-
ing the EEOC the power to hold contested hearings
and to issue cease and desist orders was that the states
were competent to enforce antidiscrimination law and
did not want or need matters resolved by a federal
bureaucracy.
The congressional preference for resolving employ-
ment discrimination claims at the state level, using state
remedies and state administrative agencies, is reflected
in Title VII’s ‘‘work sharing’’ scheme.15 Under the work
13
See, e.g., 110 Cong. Rec. 7205 (1964), remarks of Senator Joseph S.
Clark; J. Clark & C. Case, Interpretative Memorandum of Title VII of H.R.
7152, 110 Cong. Rec. 7214 (1964); J. Clark, Response to Dirksen Memoran-
dum, 110 Cong. Rec. 7216 (1964); 110 Cong. Rec. 11,942 (1964), remarks of
Senator Richard B. Russell.
14
See, e.g., 110 Cong. Rec. 7205 (1964), remarks of Senator Joseph S.
Clark (‘‘the [EEOC] can make arrangements to use and pay for the services
of [s]tate and local agencies in carrying out its duties under the [f]ederal
law’’); id., 11,936, remarks of Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (‘‘one of the
improvements I see in the amendment . . . is the inclusion . . . of provi-
sion for the responsibility of local and [s]tate authorities to seek compliance
with the law . . . through local enforcement’’); id., 12,580, remarks of Sena-
tor Humphrey (‘‘we have taken [T]itle VII and rewritten it, believing that
the prime responsibility for action and enforcement is at the [s]tate and
local level’’); id., 12,721, remarks of Senator Humphrey (‘‘[i]n effect, these
[work sharing] agreements would give jurisdiction over complaints to [state
fair employment practices] agencies [when]ever the practice complained of
also violates [s]tate or local law’’).
15
The relationship between the EEOC and the state agencies with which
it partners and to which it often defers is embodied in numerous provisions
April 26, 2022 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 51