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

2,492 chars
terms. The consent necessary to waive the traditional
          immunity must be express, and it must be strictly con-
          strued.’’ (Citations omitted; footnotes omitted; internal
          quotation marks omitted.) Id., 314–18.
             Applying these principles, the United States Supreme
          Court in Shaw concluded that prejudgment interest
          could not be awarded for employment discrimination
          claims under Title VII because, although Congress waived
          sovereign immunity with respect to liability and dam-
          ages, it did not specifically and expressly authorize
          interest payments in the statute.20 See id., 319, 323. The
          court rejected the argument that prejudgment interest
          can be characterized as ‘‘damages,’’ a ‘‘penalty,’’ or ‘‘just
          compensation’’ so as to avoid the no-interest rule.
          (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 321; see Arne-
          son v. Callahan, 128 F.3d 1243, 1247 (8th Cir. 1997) (no-
          interest rule applies notwithstanding that prejudgment
          interest awards are necessary to make whole victims
          of discrimination), cert. denied sub nom. Arneson v.
          Apfel, 524 U.S. 926, 118 S. Ct. 2319, 141 L. Ed. 2d 694
          (1998).
            Although our state courts have not articulated the
          no-interest rule with the same frequency or specificity
          as have our federal counterparts, it is apparent that
          the rule applies with equal force to the state under
          Connecticut law. In Struckman v. Burns, 205 Conn. 542,
          534 A.2d 888 (1987), this court held that prejudgment
          interest was not available for a claim brought under
          the defective highway statute, General Statutes § 13a-
          144. See id., 543, 556. Although the statute reasonably
          could have been read to imply that prejudgment interest
          was available; see id., 557–58; the court applied the
            20
              We note that Congress subsequently amended Title VII to provide
          expressly for prejudgment interest awards against the United States. See
          Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166, § 114, 105 Stat. 1071. Of course,
          that option is always available to our state legislature with respect to interest
          awards against the state.
April 26, 2022                CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                  Page 63