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

2,625 chars
courthouse. Given the timing and frustration with the
          complainant’s upset regarding working with Marco,
          it is unlikely that is the only or main reason for her
          transfer.’’ (Emphasis added.)
             The trial court vacated the injunction. The court con-
          cluded that the order ‘‘is clearly an abuse of discretion,’’
          ‘‘an error of law,’’ and ‘‘not properly tailored,’’ because
          it (1) is unnecessary to achieve the purposes of the
          state’s antidiscrimination statutes and to prevent fur-
          ther discriminatory conduct, insofar as Marco is no
          longer stationed at Danielson,38 (2) infringes on the dis-
          cretion of the branch to assign the complainant and
          other judicial marshals to the courthouse of its choosing
          on the basis of its operational needs, and (3) places no
          time limitation on how long the branch must continue
          to assign the complainant to Danielson.
             Our review is governed by the following well estab-
          lished principles. As the trial court recognized, § 46a-
          86 (a) clearly grants the commission the authority to
          issue reasonable injunctive relief tailored to eliminating
          the discriminatory practice and its effects.39 An order
          of the commission may be reversed on appeal only
          when that order is ‘‘(1) [i]n violation of constitutional
          or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory
          authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful proce-
          dure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly
          erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and sub-
          stantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary
          or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion
            38
               Marco retired as a judicial marshal in 2020.
            39
               General Statutes § 46a-86 (a) provides in relevant part that ‘‘[i]f, upon
          all the evidence presented at the hearing . . . the presiding officer finds
          that a respondent has engaged in any discriminatory practice, the presiding
          officer shall make written findings of fact and file with the commission and
          serve on the complainant and respondent an order requiring the respondent
          to cease and desist from the discriminatory practice and to take such affirma-
          tive action as is necessary to achieve the purpose of this chapter.’’
Page 84                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        April 26, 2022