344 Conn. 603
Conn.2022Background:
- A, a student diagnosed with multiple mental/cognitive disorders, attended John C. Daniels interdistrict magnet school and was initially eligible for special education (IDEA) services but later shifted to a §504 plan over his parents’ objection.
- After A suffered a concussion at school, his parents kept him home per physician advice; the board issued a habitual truancy notice and convened a planning and placement team meeting.
- At the meeting A’s father attempted to present a physician’s letter about post‑concussion syndrome; the board declined it as illegible/undated and, immediately after the meeting, unilaterally withdrew A from the magnet school without parental signature or notice.
- A’s father filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities alleging discrimination under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a‑64 and the ADA (enforced via § 46a‑58); a human rights referee found unlawful disability discrimination and awarded $25,000 for emotional distress.
- The board appealed to the Superior Court, which remanded for an ADA determination; after remand the referee again found an ADA‑predicate violation and the Superior Court affirmed; the board appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CHRO may identify ADA violations as predicates to §46a‑58 claims | M argued the commission can treat ADA violations as state law predicates under §46a‑58 | Board argued a deferral agency cannot adjudicate ADA claims or identify ADA violations because EEOC lacks adjudicatory power | Court affirmed CHRO authority, following Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert: §46a‑58 allows the commission to identify federal civil‑rights violations as state law predicates |
| Whether exhaustion of IDEA/state §10‑76h remedies was required before filing CHRO complaint | M argued his CHRO complaint sought discrimination, not a FAPE, so exhaustion was not required | Board argued the complaint sought relief for denial of FAPE and thus required exhaustion under IDEA/§10‑76h | Court held exhaustion not required: applying Fry v. Napoleon, the complaint could be brought outside school context and the parties did not pursue IDEA/§10‑76h procedures, so the claim was not a FAPE claim |
| Whether a public school is a "place of public accommodation" under §46a‑64 and whether that unresolved claim is reviewable | M treated the school as a place of public accommodation for §46a‑64 purposes | Board argued a public school is not such a place and claimed lack of CHRO jurisdiction (jurisdictional defense) | Court held the board’s argument challenged the CHRO’s statutory authority/elements, not subject‑matter jurisdiction, so the unpreserved claim was not reviewable on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (Conn. 2022) (§46a‑58 authorizes the commission to identify federal civil‑rights violations as predicates to state claims)
- Graham v. Friedlander, 334 Conn. 564 (Conn. 2019) (use Fry factors to decide when IDEA/§10‑76h exhaustion applies to state‑law claims)
- Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 U.S. 154 (U.S. 2017) (two‑part test for whether a suit seeks relief available under the IDEA)
- Cannata v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 215 Conn. 616 (Conn. 1990) (agency generally determines its own jurisdiction initially)
- In re Jose B., 303 Conn. 569 (Conn. 2012) (distinguishing subject‑matter jurisdiction from a tribunal’s statutory authority/elements of a statutory remedy)
- Mach Mining, LLC v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 575 U.S. 480 (U.S. 2015) (discusses EEOC enforcement powers and remedies)