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

418 chars 
The plaintiff, although citing a very brief portion of the legislative history of the bill that ultimately became § 4-61dd, does not claim that the statute is ambiguous. He cites only a statement made by Representative James A. O’Rourke HI, a sponsor of the bill, who, when asked if he intended there to be a rebuttable presumption as in McDonnell Douglas Corp., stated that he had not read the McDonnell Douglas Corp.