attempt to stay or delay the reinstatement proceedings
that would have “dissuaded a reasonable person from
filing a [commission] complaint . . . .” The commission
then certified the retaliation complaint to its Office of
Public Hearings for adjudication.
The Judicial Branch moved to dismiss the retaliation
complaint on the ground that the commission lacked
subject matter jurisdiction because this matter arose
from the Judicial Branch’s “core judicial function of
supervising attorney conduct,” which implicated “the
doctrines of separation of powers, judicial immunity,
quasi-judicial immunity, and the litigation privilege . . . .”
The human rights referee, without analysis or citation to
any authority, denied the motion to dismiss, character-
izing the Judicial Branch’s position as suggesting that
“it is free to discriminate against attorneys based [on]
their race, religion, sex, or other protected classifica-
tion under the guise of supervising attorney conduct.
And, presumably, the [Judicial Branch] would be free to
similarly discriminate against its own employees, as they
are, arguably, performing various core functions. There
cannot be any doctrine reasonably interpreted that could
countenance such a position. Victims of alleged discrimi-
nation cannot be limited to having the alleged perpetrator
determine whether . . . discrimination occurred.” The
referee then scheduled the matter for a public hearing.
The Judicial Branch subsequently filed this adminis-
trative appeal with the trial court. The Judicial Branch
alleged that the referee’s denial of the motion to dismiss
violated the doctrine of separation of powers under the
Connecticut constitution, along with the common-law
doctrines of judicial immunity, quasi-judicial immunity,
and the litigation privilege, by “permitting an adminis-
trative agency to significantly interfere with the Judi-
cial Branch’s core judicial functions of overseeing the
attorney discipline system, managing the court docket,
and determining when and if a conflict of interest exists
meriting the disqualification of a decision maker.” The
Judicial Branch further alleged that these doctrines
State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch v. Commission on Human Rights &
Opportunities, Office of Public Hearings