§ 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

2,448 chars

ldo-Cancel v. Aponte, supra, 925 F.2d 14 (deferring to
          District Court’s balancing of equities); Patrolmen’s
          Benevolent Assn. of City of New York, Inc. v. New York,
          Docket Nos. 97 CIV. 7895 (SAS) and 98 CIV. 8202 (SAS),
          2000 WL 1538608, *3 (S.D.N.Y. October 18, 2000) (con-
          cluding that judicial interference via injunction would
          interfere with internal operations and could diminish
          efficacy of response of New York City Police Depart-
          ment), aff’d, 310 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2002), cert. denied,
          538 U.S. 1032, 123 S. Ct. 2076, 155 L. Ed. 2d 1061 (2003);
          (3) whether reinstating her at Danielson did or will
          require the reassignment of any innocent employees;
          see, e.g., Hicks v. Board of Education, 814 F. Supp.
          1044, 1050 (M.D. Ala. 1993) (setting forth factors to be
          considered in deciding whether to issue injunction that
          would require ‘‘bumping’’ innocent employee in order
          to reinstate prevailing complainant); and (4) to what
          extent the facts on the ground now differ from what
          they were at the time of the hearing. See, e.g., Parson
          v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., supra, 575 F.2d
          1390 (‘‘practices may have altered since this case was
          first tried’’); Chace v. Champion Spark Plug Co., supra,
          609 (‘‘intervening historical circumstances can make
          [reinstatement] impossible or inappropriate’’); Thames
          Talent, Ltd. v. Commission on Human Rights & Oppor-
          tunities, supra, 265 Conn. 137 (‘‘reinstatement may be
          impractical, imprudent or even impossible’’).
             Likewise, with respect to the trial court’s third con-
          cern, the apparently unbounded nature of the injunc-
          tion, the commission on remand should clarify the
          scope and duration of the injunction, bearing in mind
          the following principles: ‘‘A party moving for [a perma-
          nent] injunction [under Title VII] must show (1) she
          has suffered irreparable injury, (2) remedies available
          at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to
          compensate for that injury, (3) considering the balance
          of hardships between the plaintiff and [the] defendant,
April 26, 2022             CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 89

Other Sections in This Document (128)

Full Text