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

2,735 chars
[L]et’s rephrase; just the over-the-counter [medications]
          that you know of . . . which does not have anything
          to do with records.’’ Finally, when the branch objected
          to testimony regarding the complainant’s use of Xanax,
          the referee ruled: ‘‘I think we’re not getting into physi-
          cian visits. I outlined in the beginning what garden-
          variety emotional distress is and how it’s analyzed. I
          really don’t think [that] taking a medic[ation] necessi-
          tates a review of medical records, but I don’t want to
          get into more treatment or anything that happened with
          a doctor.
                                             ***
             ‘‘I really don’t understand [the branch’s] objection
          because . . . I’m not letting in any evidence that per-
          tains to [the complainant’s] treatment. I know [that her
          husband] mentioned a prescription. We can strike that
          prescription . . . from the record . . . .’’31
             In her memorandum of decision, the referee largely
          avoids any mention of the complainant’s use of medica-
          tions or counselling services, and, in her analysis
          explaining her award of emotional distress damages,
          she makes no mention of that testimony.32 Her factual
          findings, however, do include three references to the
          complainant’s use of ‘‘a prescription drug’’ or ‘‘medica-
             31
                The complainant also testified in several instances regarding her need
          for psychotherapy as a result of the alleged abuse: ‘‘I had already called the
          [employee assistance program]. . . . And that’s when I . . . got my own
          therapist. . . . I went to a counselor. . . . Gurn. I went to see her and was
          going to her.’’ She continued: ‘‘At that time, I was still very hurt and very
          confused and even blocked. That’s why I went to therapy, to try to unblock
          my memory to find out who was there.’’ She further testified that she ‘‘was
          still prior to this in a state of shock, which [she] had to go to counseling
          for, two different counselors . . . .’’
             32
                The referee’s discussion of the serious emotional distress suffered by
          the complainant focused instead on the intolerable behavior involved, the
          subjective offensiveness of the abuse, the fact that the harassment took
          place in public, and the fact that the complainant’s supervisors failed to
          take seriously her repeated complaints.
Page 74                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        April 26, 2022