§ 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
2,436 charsor clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.’’ General
Statutes § 4-183 (j); see Hiraldo-Cancel v. Aponte, 925
F.2d 10, 13 (1st Cir.) (‘‘[R]einstatement is an equitable
remedy [that] is reviewed for abuse of discretion. . . .
Considerable deference is accorded a reinstatement
order, as the [referee] has had [firsthand] exposure to
the litigants and the evidence . . . [and] is in a consid-
erably better position to bring the scales into balance
than an appellate tribunal.’’ (Citation omitted; internal
quotation marks omitted.)), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1004,
112 S. Ct. 637, 116 L. Ed. 2d 655 (1991).
In view of these principles, although we share the
concerns expressed by the trial court, we find none
sufficient to warrant the court’s decision to simply
vacate the injunction as a matter of law. With respect
to the first point raised by the court, it is true that
Marco’s retirement eliminated any possibility that the
complainant might be assigned to a courthouse where
she would have to serve alongside him. The primary
purpose for reinstating an employee who is transferred
after complaining of sexual harassment, however, is to
vindicate the important public policy against punishing
or retaliating against victims who report abuse. See,
e.g., Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 882 (9th Cir. 1991)
(‘‘[w]e strongly believe that the victim of sexual harass-
ment should not be punished for the conduct of the
harasser . . . [by having] to work in a less desirable
location’’); Jean-Baptiste v. District of Columbia, 958
F. Supp. 2d 37, 51 (D.D.C. 2013) (issuing permanent
injunction even though defendant no longer employed
alleged abuser), appeal dismissed, Docket No. 13-7124,
2014 WL 812812 (D.C. Cir. January 21, 2014). That pur-
pose was served by the referee’s order regardless of
Marco’s particular circumstances at the time relief
was granted.
The trial court made clear that its ruling vacating the
injunction was predicated on the assumption that the
April 26, 2022 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 85