207 Conn.App. 668
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Complainant Kelly Howard filed a CHRO housing discrimination complaint alleging seven years of racial verbal and physical harassment by neighbor Richard Cantillon, including use of the N-word and threats.
- Cantillon was defaulted in the administrative proceeding; a damages hearing followed.
- CHRO sought $75,000 in compensatory damages; the human rights referee awarded $15,000 for emotional distress plus modest out-of-pocket costs, and entered cease-and-desist and nonretaliation orders.
- CHRO’s reconsideration request was deemed denied; CHRO appealed to Superior Court, which remanded for reconsideration under Patino v. Birken. On remand the referee left the award unchanged.
- Superior Court affirmed the referee’s final decision; CHRO appealed to the Appellate Court challenging the referee’s application of Patino and the Harrison factors in setting emotional-distress damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Patino establishes a presumptive $30,000–$125,000 range for "garden variety" emotional-distress awards | Patino recognizes and supplies a presumptive monetary range; referee’s $15,000 award below that range is legal error | Patino does not create a mandatory range; awards are fact-driven | Patino does not create a binding or presumptive range; referee’s award not reversible solely for falling outside that general range |
| Whether tribunals must consider analogous out-of-state decisions when awarding emotional-distress damages | Tribunal must consider analogous decisions from neighboring jurisdictions per Patino | No legal mandate to consult other jurisdictions; consideration may be persuasive but is discretionary | No requirement to consider out-of-state decisions; referee properly relied on local precedent and factual record |
| Whether referee improperly considered the parties’ relationship (neighbor vs landlord-tenant) when weighing Harrison factors | Considering the neighbor relationship was unlawful departure from Harrison factors | Relationship affects power dynamic and is relevant to offensiveness and impact | Referee reasonably considered relationship; neighbor relationship lacked landlord’s coercive power so reducing emotional-impact weight was permissible |
| Whether referee erred by treating the harassment as not "public" or by requiring intentional public humiliation | Harassment was public and more pervasive; referee imposed extra requirement that conduct be intentionally public | Determination whether conduct was public is factual; intent and circumstances are relevant to impact and damages | Finding that harassment was generally not public was a factual determination supported by testimony; considering respondent’s intent was a permissible part of assessing public humiliation and impact |
Key Cases Cited
- Patino v. Birken Mfg. Co., 41 A.3d 1013 (Conn. 2012) (upheld emotional-distress award on facts; language citing a general $30,000–$125,000 range was not a binding presumption)
- Dept. of Public Safety v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 6 A.3d 763 (Conn. 2010) (judicial review of administrative factfinding is limited)
- Thames Talent, Ltd. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 827 A.2d 659 (Conn. 2003) (CHRO has broad remedial discretion to tailor remedies)
- Chairperson, Conn. Medical Examining Bd. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 77 A.3d 121 (Conn. 2013) (agency conclusions of law stand if reasonably and correctly applied)
- State v. Liebenguth, 250 A.3d 1 (Conn. 2020) (context on the historical and injurious meaning of racial epithets)