DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 46a-64c

Citation
Section 46a-64c
Parent Document
Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan Associates, 250 Conn. 763 (1999)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
1999-10-12
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7898215/commission-on-human-rights-oppo... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (133)

Full Text

570 chars 
The record reveals that the defendant stated that it was rejecting Roper both because she did not meet its minimum income standard and because of the section 8 security deposit requirement. With respect to its rejection of Hanson, the only reason proffered by the defendant at the time was that section 8 would not allow two months’ rent as security. The defendant claims now that its rejection of Hanson also falls under the statutory exception because “if the conversation [with Hanson] had progressed, the applicant’s low income would inevitably have emerged . . . .”