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... ↗

Full Text

844 chars

“The principal inquiry of a disparate treatment case is whether the plaintiff was subjected to different treatment because of his or her protected status.” (Emphasis added.) Levy v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, supra, 236 Conn 104. “Under the analysis of the disparate treatment theory of liability, there are two general methods to allocate the burdens of proof: (1) the mixed-motive/Price Waterhouse model; Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 246, 109 S. Ct. 1775, 104 L. Ed. 2d 268 (1989); and (2) the pretext/ McDonnell Douglas-Burdine model. Texas Dept. of *801Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-56, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973).” Levy v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, supra, 104-105.

Other Sections in This Document (133)

Full Text