§ 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

2,623 chars

interest on Title VII back pay awards. Several other
          federal courts of appeals have adopted the reasoning
          of Shaw and Brown in the Title VII context; see, e.g.,
          Arneson v. Callahan, supra, 128 F.3d 1245–46; Woolf v.
          Bowles, 57 F.3d 407, 409–10 (4th Cir. 1995); Edwards
          v. Lujan, 40 F.3d 1152, 1154 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied
          sub nom. Edwards v. Dept. of Interior, 516 U.S. 963,
          116 S. Ct. 417, 133 L. Ed. 2d 335 (1995); or with respect
          to similar statutes. See, e.g., Adam v. Norton, 636 F.3d
          1190, 1192–93 (9th Cir. 2011); Ward v. Brown, 22 F.3d
          516, 520 (2d Cir. 1994).22 But see DeRoche v. Massachu-
          setts Commission Against Discrimination, 447 Mass.
          1, 12–14, 848 N.E.2d 1197 (2006) (holding that, by per-
          mitting the award of back pay against public employer
          under commonwealth’s antidiscrimination laws, state
          legislature by necessary implication also waived sover-
          eign immunity as to interest awards).
             The commission directs our attention to Thames Tal-
          ent, Ltd. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportu-
          nities, 265 Conn. 127, 827 A.2d 659 (2003), the case on
          which the trial court relied in concluding that the state
          has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to inter-
          est payments under § 46a-86 (a). In Thames Talent,
          Ltd., this court concluded that the failure to award
          interest on awards of back pay under § 46a-86 (b)
          against private employers ‘‘would be contrary to the
          fundamental purpose of our laws against workplace
          discrimination [as it would] deprive a person victimized
          by such discrimination of the true value of the money
          to which he or she lawfully is entitled . . . .’’ Id., 143.
          In that case, however, the defendant was a private party,
            22
               The federal courts are in disagreement as to whether the express con-
          gressional waiver of sovereign immunity under a different statute, the Back
          Pay Act; 5 U.S.C. § 5596 (2018); applies to claims brought under Title VII.
          Compare, e.g., Woolf v. Bowles, supra, 57 F.3d 410 (Back Pay Act waives
          government’s sovereign immunity from interest awards in Title VII cases),
          with Arneson v. Callahan, supra, 128 F.3d 1246 (Back Pay Act does not
          govern Title VII).
Page 66                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                              April 26, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (128)

Full Text