Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 20 A.3d 1272 (2011)

Citation: Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 20 A.3d 1272 (2011)
Parent Document: Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 20 A.3d 1272 (2011)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2011-06-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2551132/blinkoff-v-commission-on-human-... ↗

Full Text

765 chars

The following additional procedural background is relevant to our resolution of this claim. At the agency hearing, in opposition to the plaintiffs allegation that the city had boycotted her business in retaliation for filing her complaint with the commission, the city asserted that it temporarily ceased doing business with the plaintiff because she had failed to renew her special exception permit once it expired in July, 1996. The plaintiff, in rebuttal, alleged that the city’s proffered explanation was pretextual given that the city had bought product from similarly situated businesses in the absence of a permit. Following the referee’s determination that no retaliatory boycott had occurred, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration claiming, *722

Other Sections in This Document (55)

Full Text