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... ↗

Full Text

1,241 chars

In construing this statute, the plaintiff essentially argues that the term “personnel action” does not have the same meaning as “employment action,” that “personnel action” should be construed more narrowly than “employment action” and that, therefore, the referee erred by applying the standards used in adverse employment action cases to a claim brought under § 4-61dd. The plaintiff does not define the meaning of the terms “personnel action” and “employment action,” nor does he explain how they differ. Furthermore, he fails to explain, if the adverse employment action standard, typically used in retaliation and discrimination cases, does not apply to § 4-61dd cases, what is the appropriate standard to be applied in § 4-61dd cases. We also have reviewed the record, including the transcripts from the hearings before the office of public hearings, and it does not appear that the plaintiff argued before the referee that there existed a distinction between the terms “personnel action” and “employment action,” nor does it appear that he argued that the referee should use a standard other than the “adverse employment action” standard utilized in retaliation and discrimination cases, which standard also consistently has been *577

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text