§ 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

2,466 chars

a remedy in equity is warranted and (4) the public
          interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunc-
          tion. . . . The . . . necessary determination is that
          there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent viola-
          tion.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omit-
          ted.) Pierce v. Philadelphia, 391 F. Supp. 3d 419, 445
          (E.D. Pa. 2019), aff’d, 811 Fed. Appx. 142 (3d Cir. 2020);
          see Howe v. Akron, 801 F.3d 718, 754 (6th Cir. 2015)
          (‘‘permanent injunctions should be tailored to redress
          the harm without hamstringing local government’’);
          Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cre-
          ative Networks, LLC, 912 F. Supp. 2d 828, 846 (D. Ariz.
          2012) (‘‘[p]ermanent injunctive relief is warranted
          [when the] . . . defendant’s past and present miscon-
          duct indicates a strong likelihood of future violations’’
          (internal quotation marks omitted)). If the commission
          determines that the scope of the branch’s misconduct
          and the balance of the equities do not warrant an order
          that permanently precludes the branch from reassigning
          the complainant, then the commission should specify
          at what point or under what circumstances the injunc-
          tion will expire. See, e.g., Howe v. Akron, supra, 754–55
          (modifying permanent injunction to extend for one pro-
          motional cycle); Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
          mission v. Service Temps, Inc., 679 F.3d 323, 338–39
          (5th Cir. 2012) (limiting remedial injunction to two
          years); Locke v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 660
          F.2d 359, 368 and n.11 (8th Cir. 1981) (recommending
          that District Court retain jurisdiction over matter for six
          months following reinstatement of complainant, during
          which employer would ‘‘carry the burden of persuasion
          that any dismissal of [the complainant] is based entirely
          on legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors’’). And, lastly,
          any order should specify whether, during the course of
          the injunction, the branch may continue to assign the
          complainant to other courthouses on a short-term basis
          consistent with its operational needs and norms. See,
Page 90                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        April 26, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (128)

Full Text