§ 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)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
- § 46a-58
Full Text
3,028 charsU.S. 957, 125 S. Ct. 1731, 161 L. Ed. 2d 596 (2005); Patino
v. Birken Mfg. Co., 304 Conn. 679, 708, 41 A.3d 1013
(2012) (‘‘[garden-variety] emotional distress claims gen-
erally merit $30,000 to $125,000 awards’’ (internal quota-
tion marks omitted)).35
However, because the referee made several findings
of fact regarding the complainant’s need for medication,
we are unable to conclude that the improperly admitted
evidence did not factor into her damages calculation.
On remand for a new hearing in damages, the complain-
ant will present evidence of garden-variety emotional
distress only, and the referee will assess damages in
an amount deemed reasonable and appropriate in light
of that evidence.36
IV
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Finally, we turn to the issue of whether the trial
court properly vacated the injunction requiring that the
branch ‘‘give the complainant the option of returning
to the Danielson courthouse,’’ from where she had been
transferred after reporting the abuse to her superiors.37
35
We express no opinion as to the issues presented by the pending appeal
in Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Cantillon, 340 Conn.
909, 909–10, 264 A.3d 94 (2021), such as whether a damages award of less than
$30,000 for garden-variety emotional distress is presumptively insufficient.
36
The branch should understand that the hearing in damages is de novo
and, therefore, that the size of the award on remand may be less than, the
same as, or greater than the amount of the vacated award.
37
We note that there is some question as to whether this issue is moot.
At the time of the hearing in February, 2017, the complainant testified that
she had been reassigned to Danielson. Although there was some possibility
that she would again be transferred from that courthouse, her supervisor
had represented to her that he was going to try to keep her there. Also, in
the nearly five years that have since passed, Marco has retired, and the
complainant has opted not to participate in the present appeal. It is unclear,
then, whether the injunctive relief at issue remains part of a live controversy.
Because the parties have not represented otherwise, however, we proceed
on the assumption that the issue is not moot, and we leave it to the commis-
sion to make a final determination on remand. See, e.g., Jean-Baptiste v.
District of Columbia, 958 F. Supp. 2d 37, 49 (D.D.C. 2013) (‘‘[a] request for
April 26, 2022 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 81