§ 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

2,433 chars

affording the victim the opportunity to return to his
          or her former workplace, or ‘‘rightful place,’’ is the
          preferred means of vindicating that policy. (Internal
          quotation marks omitted.) Parson v. Kaiser Alumi-
          num & Chemical Corp., 575 F.2d 1374, 1391 (5th Cir.
          1978), cert. denied sub nom. Local 13000, United Steel-
          workers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Parson, 441 U.S.
          968, 99 S. Ct. 2417, 60 L. Ed. 2d 1073 (1979); see, e.g.,
          Reeves v. Board of Education, 828 F.2d 1096, 1101–1102
          (5th Cir. 1987); McGill v. Board of Education, 602 F.2d
          774, 776 (7th Cir. 1979); see also Nord v. United States
          Steel Corp., 758 F.2d 1462, 1473 (11th Cir. 1985) (‘‘Title
          VII claimants are . . . presumptively entitled to rein-
          statement under the ‘make whole’ policy’’); Stewart v.
          General Motors Corp., 756 F.2d 1285, 1291 (7th Cir.
          1985) (remedial injunction simply protects complain-
          ant’s preexisting right to be treated equally with other
          employees).
             This is not to say that logistical considerations are
          wholly irrelevant in fashioning proper relief. Before
          ordering the branch to reinstate the complainant, the
          referee must consider factors such as (1) whether, and
          to what extent, the branch’s relocation of the complain-
          ant to other courthouses since 2012 departs from the
          norms that have applied to other marshals; see, e.g.,
          Stolzenburg v. Ford Motor Co., 143 F.3d 402, 407 (8th
          Cir. 1998); see also Chace v. Champion Spark Plug Co.,
          732 F. Supp. 605, 610 (D. Md. 1990) (ordering reinstate-
          ment with same salary and benefits as are accorded to
          other employees); (2) what impact keeping the com-
          plainant at Danielson will have on the operational needs
          of the branch and whether any imposition in that regard
          will outweigh the benefit to her of being assigned to a
          courthouse closer to her home; see, e.g., Equal Employ-
          ment Opportunity Commission v. Yenkin-Majestic
          Paint Corp., 112 F.3d 831, 836 (6th Cir. 1997) (remanding
          for balancing of equities prior to reinstatement); Hira-
Page 88                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        April 26, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (128)

Full Text