§ 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

2,420 chars

was necessary as a matter of public policy to ensure
          the orderly payment of judgments. We explained that
          the doctrine of sovereign immunity embodies and prior-
          itizes a different public policy, namely, the ‘‘ ‘ancient’ ’’;
          id., 801; and compelling policy of ‘‘ ‘prevent[ing] the
          imposition of enormous fiscal burdens on states.’ ’’
          Id., 807.
             Accordingly, under Struckman, if the legislature has
          waived the state’s sovereign immunity as to interest,
          it must have done so either expressly or by force of
          necessary implication. It is clear that the state has not
          expressly waived its immunity with respect to interest
          on damages and back pay awarded pursuant to § 46a-
          86 (b) and (c). Moreover, in Hicks, we concluded that,
          because interest is not traditionally ‘‘awarded as a part
          of damages,’’ a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity
          only as to damages does not, by force of necessary
          implication, waive the state’s immunity as to interest.
          (Emphasis in original.) Id., 803.
            The commission counters that liability for interest is
          inherent in the award of back pay and, therefore, that,
          by providing for the award of back pay against the state,
          § 46a-86 (b) necessarily waives sovereign immunity as
          to interest, as well. The federal courts have rejected
          this argument. In Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 557–58,
          108 S. Ct. 1965, 100 L. Ed. 2d 549 (1988), the United
          States Supreme Court proceeded on the assumption
          that, although interest is impliedly available on awards
          of back pay against private employers under Title VII,
          Congress had not waived the government’s sovereign
          immunity thereunder. In Brown v. Secretary of Army,
          918 F.2d 214, 218 (D.C. Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub nom.
          Brown v. Stone, 502 U.S. 810, 112 S. Ct. 57, 116 L. Ed.
          2d 33 (1991), the United States Court of Appeals for
          the District of Columbia Circuit, applying Loeffler, con-
          cluded that, in the absence of an express waiver, the
          government’s sovereign immunity bars the award of
April 26, 2022                 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                  Page 65

Other Sections in This Document (128)

Full Text