347 Conn. 58
Conn.2023Background
- Neighbor Cantillon repeatedly hurled racial epithets (including the N‑word), made obscene gestures, threatened physical violence, and menaced complainant Kelly Howard over years; incidents led to many police calls.
- Howard filed a housing discrimination complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO). Cantillon defaulted at the liability stage.
- After a damages hearing, a CHRO referee awarded Howard $15,000 for garden‑variety emotional distress.
- The CHRO appealed, arguing Patino established a presumptive $30,000 floor for garden‑variety emotional‑distress awards and that the referee misapplied the CHRO’s Harrison three‑factor test for emotional distress.
- Superior Court and the Appellate Court affirmed the referee’s award; the Supreme Court granted certification and affirmed, holding Patino did not create a minimum award and that the referee properly applied the Harrison framework and was entitled to deference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Patino created a presumptive minimum range for garden‑variety emotional‑distress awards | Patino (and cited federal decisions) establish a $30,000–$125,000 range; $15,000 is presumptively too low | Patino merely noted comparable verdicts; it did not create a rule limiting low awards; awards are factbound and entitled to deference | Court: Patino did not establish a judicial floor; courts/refs may award less than $30,000; $15,000 was not per se invalid |
| Whether the referee misapplied or expanded the Harrison three‑factor test | CHRO: referee undervalued objective factors (heinous language, some public incidents) and gave undue weight to Cantillon being a mere neighbor | Referee: subjective emotional reaction is paramount; objective factors are secondary and were considered as mitigating here | Court: referee applied Harrison correctly, properly prioritized subjective distress, and factual findings were not clearly erroneous |
| Whether courts should impose a damages floor (or ceiling) for noneconomic awards | CHRO: a benchmark avoids inconsistency and forum shopping | CHRO’s policy concerns are for legislature/agency rulemaking; benchmarking verdicts is disfavored; deference to factfinder | Court: setting minimum/maximum damages is legislative; judiciary should not impose fixed floors; no record of forum shopping |
Key Cases Cited
- Patino v. Birken Mfg. Co., 304 Conn. 679 (Conn. 2012) (upheld large garden‑variety emotional‑distress award; did not create a mandatory minimum)
- Munn v. Hotchkiss School, 326 Conn. 540 (Conn. 2017) (rejects comparing verdicts as a basis for remittitur; emphasizes deference to trier of fact)
- Margolin v. Kleban & Samor, P.C., 275 Conn. 765 (Conn. 2005) (remittitur standard; damages are peculiarly within province of trier of fact)
- McKirdy v. Cascio, 142 Conn. 80 (Conn. 1955) (noneconomic damages are indefinite and speculative in nature)
- Wichers v. Hatch, 252 Conn. 174 (Conn. 2000) (court should not establish arbitrary demarcations for noneconomic damages)
- Birgel v. Heintz, 163 Conn. 23 (Conn. 1972) (no precise mathematical rule exists for noneconomic damages)
- Gorham v. Farmington Motor Inn, Inc., 159 Conn. 576 (Conn. 1970) (comparisons with other verdicts serve little purpose)
- Olsen v. Nassau University Medical Center, 615 F. Supp. 2d 35 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (district court observation on garden‑variety damages ranges in Second Circuit; court cautioned context and variability)