[complainant]?”4 The complainant then filed a second
complaint with the commission (retaliation complaint),
alleging that the standing committee’s motion for advice
filed in the Superior Court constituted “evidence of con-
tinuing retaliatory motive and conduct.” The commission
allowed the retaliation complaint to proceed, treating it
as a new complaint rather than as an amendment to the
first complaint, which it had dismissed following the
case assessment process.
The commission investigated the retaliation complaint
and found that there was reasonable cause to believe
that the Judicial Branch had committed a discrimina-
tory practice.5 The investigator’s finding of reasonable
cause indicated that the motion for advice constituted an
4
In March, 2021, the standing committee requested that Judge Carroll
transfer the matter to a different committee on the ground that the
retaliation complaint had created a conflict of interest. Judge Eliza-
beth A. Bozzuto, who was then the deputy chief court administrator,
responded that a possible transfer of the matter was more appropriately
directed to the Superior Court under the rules of practice. Ultimately,
the Superior Court, Pavia, J., concluded that it lacked authority to
provide the advice requested by the standing committee in its motion.
It did, however, grant the standing committee’s separate motion to
transfer the matter to a different standing committee on the ground
that there was a conflict of interest.
5
The record does not reflect the statutory basis for the commission’s
exercise of jurisdiction over the retaliation complaint against the
Judicial Branch. Briefing and oral argument in this appeal are similarly
unclear about whether the commission maintains, for example, that a
standing committee’s proceedings concerning an attorney’s reinstate-
ment or readmission to the practice of law constitute accommodations
in a place of public accommodation. See General Statutes § 46a-64 (a)
(“[i]t shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section:
(1) To deny any person within the jurisdiction of this state full and
equal accommodations in any place of public accommodation, resort
or amusement because of race”); see also General Statutes § 46a-63 (1)
(“ ‘[p]lace of public accommodation, resort or amusement’ means any
establishment which caters or offers its services or facilities or goods
to the general public, including, but not limited to, any commercial
property or building lot, on which it is intended that a commercial
building will be constructed or offered for sale or rent”). Given the
immunity issues presented by the Judicial Branch’s motion to dismiss,
we need not address whether the commission had statutory jurisdiction
over the retaliation complaint separate and apart from the separation
of powers considerations.
State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch v. Commission on Human Rights &
Opportunities, Office of Public Hearings