§ 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

2,488 chars

to satisfy demands of due process); New York Gaslight
          Club, Inc. v. Carey, supra, 447 U.S. 67–68 (applying rule
          with respect to prevailing complainant who sought
          attorney’s fees in supplemental federal action); cf. Nes-
          tor v. Pratt & Whitney, 466 F.3d 65, 68, 73 (2d Cir.
          2006) (holding that complainant, who prevailed before
          commission and whose award of back pay was upheld
          by Connecticut Appellate Court, could seek additional
          damages and attorney’s fees in federal court action
          when commission’s findings as to liability would have
          preclusive effect, despite administrative forum’s use of
          flexible evidentiary rules and lack of discovery).
             Indeed, both of the federal courts that have consid-
          ered the question before us have concluded that, when
          the commission finds a Title VII violation as the factual
          predicate to a violation of § 46a-58 (a), it does so as a
          matter of Connecticut state law and does not thereby
          infringe federal supremacy. See Shelton v. Hughes,
          supra, 578 Fed. Appx. 54 (‘‘[b]ecause § 46a-58 (a) explic-
          itly adopts federal antidiscrimination law as part of the
          substantive conduct it regulates, claimants may allege
          violations of federal law, such as Title VII . . . in
          actions before the [commission]’’); Shelton v. Collins,
          Docket No. 3:12cv1176 (JBA), 2014 WL 1032765, *5 (D.
          Conn. March 14, 2014) (concluding that ‘‘no ongoing
          violation of federal law is plausibly alleged’’ by statutory
          scheme that allows award of damages for Title VII viola-
          tions under §§ 46a-58 (a) and 46a-86 (c)), aff’d sub nom.
          Shelton v. Hughes, 578 Fed. Appx. 53 (2d Cir. 2014);
          see also Carey v. New York Gaslight Club, Inc., 598
          F.2d 1253, 1257–58 (2d Cir. 1979) (holding that provision
          of Title VII providing attorney’s fees for prevailing par-
          ties extended to complainant whose EEOC complaint
          was referred to and resolved in public hearing before
          New York State Division of Human Rights, and opining
          that ‘‘[the reasoning of other United States Courts of
          Appeals] supports a similarly favorable result for com-
April 26, 2022                  CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 55

Other Sections in This Document (128)

Full Text