Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
129 Conn. App. 714
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Blinkoff owned and operated a quarry in Torrington; city approved a 1994 special exception with hours restrictions and later issued cease and desist orders for after-hours operation.
- Blinkoff filed an administrative complaint in January 1995 alleging gender and religion discrimination; later amendments alleged retaliation for filing the complaint.
- City and Dana McGuinness faced further complaints; a show cause/temporary injunction suit was filed in 1995, with continued enforcement actions through 1996.
- Permit renewal expired in 1996; city refused to purchase from Blinkoff until renewal; Blinkoff continued operating without a permit until 1996–1997.
- Renewal hearing occurred in January 1997 after extended delays; permit renewed in 1997, Blinkoff reinstated as eligible vendor, but she did not bid thereafter and sold the quarry in 2000.
- Administrative proceedings resumed and focused on whether retaliation violated § 46a-60(a)(4); referee found retaliation but no compensable damages; Superior Court dismissed appeal and this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly limited review to the record | Blinkoff argues the court should consider additional statements and documents. | Torrington contends review is confined to the administrative record. | Court affirmed; review limited to the record; new materials not admitted could not be considered. |
| Whether there was substantial evidence of no retaliatory boycott | Blinkoff contends city engaged in retaliatory boycott of her business. | City argued comparable treatment and non-similarly situated conduct showed no boycott. | Substantial evidence supported the referee's finding that there was no retaliatory boycott. |
| Whether Blinkoff proved compensable damages from retaliation | Blinkoff seeks lost sales and attorney fees resulting from delay and lawsuit. | Damages were not proven with reasonable certainty; certain fees were not causally linked to retaliation. | Referee correctly found no damages; plaintiff failed to prove compensable damages with sufficient basis. |
| Whether commissions error claims can be reviewed on appeal | Commission raises new administrative-error claims on appeal. | Statutes require review of such claims in Superior Court, not this court. | Court rejected plain-error review of new claims; Commission cannot raise such claims here without Superior Court review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corriveau v. Corriveau, 126 Conn. App. 231, 11 A.3d 176 (2011) (pro se litigants bound by rules; record-based review)
- Garcia v. Hartford, 292 Conn. 334, 972 A.2d 706 (2009) (limits on review of administrative claims; procedural framing)
- Groton v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 169 Conn. 89, 362 A.2d 1359 (1975) (agency must strictly comply with governing statutes and regulations)
- Bridgeport Hospital v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 232 Conn. 91, 653 A.2d 782 (1995) (statutory limitations on remedies for discrimination)
- Spitz v. Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 127 Conn. App. 108, 12 A.3d 1080 (2011) (substantial evidence standard; review of fact findings)