§ 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

2,645 chars

and we emphasized that our conclusion was consistent
          with the federal courts’ interpretation of Title VII. See
          id., 143 n.23. The federal courts have indeed applied
          this rationale to conclude that the award of interest is
          necessary to make complainants whole with respect to
          back pay awards against private employers, but they
          nevertheless have concluded that sovereign immunity
          bars the award of interest against public employers in
          the absence of an express statutory authorization. This
          reasoning reflects the fact that, although Title VII and
          its state counterparts are remedial statutes, which gen-
          erally must be construed liberally to fully compensate
          complainants for their injuries and to discourage defen-
          dants from delaying the payment of back wages; see,
          e.g., id., 144–45; different rules of construction apply
          when the defendant is sovereign, in recognition of the
          fundamentally different policy concerns that are at
          issue. See, e.g., Martinez v. Dept. of Public Safety, 263
          Conn. 74, 79, 818 A.2d 758 (2003) (‘‘[t]he practical and
          logical basis of the doctrine [of sovereign immunity] is
          today recognized to rest on this principle [that there
          can be no legal right as against the authority that makes
          the law on which the right depends] and on the hazard
          that the subjection of the state and federal governments
          to private litigation might constitute a serious interfer-
          ence with the performance of their functions and with
          their control over their respective instrumentalities,
          funds, and property’’ (internal quotation marks omit-
          ted)); Ware v. State, 118 Conn. App. 65, 89, 983 A.2d
          853 (2009) (holding that waiver of state’s sovereign
          immunity under Fair Employment Practices Act does
          not extend to punitive damages because different policy
          considerations apply to state than to private actors);
          see also State v. Lombardo Bros. Mason Contractors,
          Inc., 307 Conn. 412, 431–32, 54 A.3d 1005 (2012) (dis-
          cussing policy justifications for closely related nullum
          tempus rule).23
            23
               The cases from other jurisdictions that the commission cites are likewise
          unavailing, insofar as prejudgment and postjudgment interest awards and,
April 26, 2022                  CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 67

Other Sections in This Document (128)

Full Text