Labor and Public Employees Committee

JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT

SPONSORS OF BILL:

Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association

REASONS FOR BILL:

The bill allows a person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged discriminatory practice to file a complaint with the superior court rather than with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.

SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE:

The substitute language allows a complainant or his/her attorney to request a release of jurisdiction from the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities after a complaint is filed.

RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:

Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities: Opposed

This bill would cut the heart out of a century of administrative law advancement in Connecticut. Administrative law provides the average citizen a speedier, more comprehensible and less expensive means of resolving a case without having to go to court. If this bill is passed, then you might as well eliminate the power of the DMV, DCF, DCP, and DEP and the rest of the state agencies that enforce our laws administratively. Employers could be burdened with a lawsuit two years after an alleged discriminatory incident occurs. It might even be an allegation the employer was completely unaware of by an employee no longer at the company. Such a late filing in court would also instill in many the probably false hope that they could receive damages or get their jobs back.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:

Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association:

The CTLA supports this bill would allow individuals bringing discrimination cases under Connecticut's Fair Employment Practices Act the option to bring their cases directly to court without having to wait 210 days as is currently required. This bill aims to save individual employees and employers time and money. It will also reduce the case load and burden of the CHRO by saving money for the state. Althought the CHRO administrative process may be a more cost effective process for resolving simple pro se cases, it is not an option for more complex cases and for individuals who are represented by counsel.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:

AFSCME Council 4:

We believe that skirting the CHRO process will lead to higher costs for governmental and public entities and state citizens alike. This bill will lead to higher court costs and longer court backlogs. The CHRO process works. We see no need for this bill.

AFSCME Local 2663:

This bill provides no new benefits to the citizens of the state. It seeks to circumvent a highly effective principle of administrative law. If an adequate administrative remedy exists, then it must be exhausted before the superior court obtains jurisdiction to act in the matter.

CBIA:

Connecticut law already provides individuals an opportunity to bring discrimination claims directly into court if and when all parties agree. If the period were shortened to 180 days or less, it would still provide the administrative process a chance to address discrimination complaints without causing unnecessary delays. This bill is the first step in eroding the purpose and efficacy of state agencies as gatekeepers in ensuring that only necessary court litigation occurs. Many claims brought by members of protected classes under state law, including sexual orientation (not a protected class under federal law) would be left without redress.

Greater Hartford Legal Aid (GHLA)

Maintaining the current CHRO process as an administrative exhaustion requirement has a number of significant advantages to parties and to the state. First, the CHRO process is settlement-oriented and helps promote voluntary resolution of complaints. Secondly, the process is navigable by pro se complainants and respondents and, with shorter time limitations for filing actions and fact-finding procedures, the structure is designed to handle cases quickly. Finally, maintaining the current system mirrors the federal scheme with the EEOC. CHRO currently works with EEOC through a work-sharing agreement, allowing a review of all claims at the same time.