DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (2012)

Citation
Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (2012)
Parent Document
Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (2012)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2012-05-22
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2297138/eagen-v-commission-on-human-rig... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text

434 chars 
On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in dismissing his appeal because (1) the referee improperly expanded the scope of § 4-61dd by interpreting the term “personnel action” to mean “employment action,” (2) there was not substantial evidence to show that the plaintiff had retaliated against Schwartz and (3) the court should have considered errors of fact made by the referee. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.