Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Echo Hose Ambulance
140 A.3d 190
Conn.2016Background
- Sarah Puryear, an unpaid participant in Echo Hose Ambulance’s precepting program, alleged race/color discrimination and retaliation under CFEPA and Title VII after suspension, termination (later overruled), and denial of membership.
- The complaint did not allege Sarah received pay or non-incidental benefits for her service.
- Echo Hose and the city moved to strike, arguing Sarah was not an "employee" because she failed the federal "remuneration test." Sarah argued Connecticut’s common-law "right to control" test applied.
- A CHRO human rights referee struck the complaint under the remuneration test; the trial court and Appellate Court affirmed. The issue was certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation principles, federal precedent, and a recent legislative enactment concerning unpaid interns (P.A. 15-56) and affirmed that the remuneration test governs whether a volunteer is an "employee" under CFEPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which test determines whether a volunteer is an "employee" under CFEPA? | Sarah: use Connecticut common-law right-to-control (agency) test. | Echo Hose/CHRO: apply federal remuneration test as threshold for volunteers. | Remuneration test applies; volunteer must show remuneration (direct or non-incidental benefits) before right-to-control analysis. |
| Does federal Title VII precedent guide CFEPA interpretation? | Sarah: state law should control; prior Connecticut cases assumed volunteers could be protected. | Defendants: CFEPA should align with Title VII jurisprudence. | Federal precedent is persuasive; CFEPA should generally be interpreted in accordance with Title VII unless legislature indicates otherwise. |
| Does P.A. 15-56 (intern protections) affect test choice? | Sarah: legislature intended broader protection, favoring right-to-control approach. | Defendants: P.A.15-56 shows legislature distinguishes unpaid interns (compensation-focused) from employees, supporting remuneration focus. | P.A.15-56 indicates legislature treats unpaid interns separately based on compensation status, supporting application of remuneration test. |
| Could applying remuneration test frustrate CFEPA’s remedial purpose? | Sarah: remuneration test yields unfair results and undermines anti-discrimination policy. | Defendants: statutory language and legislative action show limits were intended. | Court: remedial purpose does not override legislative intent; use remuneration test. |
Key Cases Cited
- Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (common-law agency/right-to-control framework)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (presumption of common-law master-servant meaning of "employee")
- O'Connor v. Davis, 126 F.3d 112 (2d Cir.) (discussing remuneration vs. agency tests)
- Haavistola v. Community Fire Co. of Rising Sun, Inc., 6 F.3d 211 (4th Cir.) (adopting remuneration threshold approach)
- Juino v. Livingston Parish Fire Dist. No. 5, 717 F.3d 431 (5th Cir.) (describing two-step remuneration test)
- Perodeau v. Hartford, 259 Conn. 729 (Connecticut precedent applying federal fair-employment jurisprudence to CFEPA)