History
  • No items yet
midpage
147 Conn. App. 730
Conn. App. Ct.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • Hinde (plaintiff) filed a CHRO charge in March 2011 against Specialized Education Services, Inc. (SESI) for sexual harassment/gender discrimination and received a CHRO release in December 2011 to sue SESI.
  • In February 2012 Hinde sued in Superior Court but the summons/caption named a non‑existent entity ("Specialized Student Education Services, Inc.") while the body and service identified SESI; SESI was served and appeared.
  • SESI moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (and later for lack of subject matter jurisdiction), submitting affidavits that it was not Hinde’s employer and that SESI and the Connecticut defendant were separate entities; Hinde did not submit affidavits or request an evidentiary hearing.
  • Judge Frechette granted SESI’s motion to dismiss, finding the served entity was not the plaintiff’s employer and implicitly rejecting the alter‑ego theory; Hinde did not appeal that ruling.
  • Hinde then sued Specialized Education of Connecticut, Inc. (the Connecticut defendant) in a different Superior Court; that court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (no CHRO proceeding or release naming the Connecticut defendant). Hinde appealed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Proper interpretation of Judge Frechette’s dismissal Frechette dismissed only the misnamed, non‑existent entity; he did not find SESI and the Connecticut defendant were separate Frechette’s order, and the affidavits referred to in it, effectively applied to the entity actually served (SESI) and rejected alter‑ego Court construed Frechette’s order as applying to SESI and implicitly rejecting the alter‑ego claim; no error in that interpretation
Failure to make findings on estoppel and alter‑ego Hinde contends the court should have made findings and could excuse exhaustion because the defendant participated/was estopped or was alter ego of SESI Defendant argued the complaint lacked factual allegations or affidavits supporting estoppel or alter‑ego; counsel argument alone is not evidence Court held Hinde failed to plead or supply evidence supporting estoppel or alter‑ego and the court properly declined to make findings absent such facts
Title VII exhaustion/right‑to‑sue requirement Hinde argued right‑to‑sue/exhaustion are procedural preconditions (not jurisdictional) and may be waived or equitably tolled; court should have waived them here Defendant argued Hinde did not obtain CHRO release as to it and thus failed to satisfy the statutory prerequisites for suing that employer Court relied on federal precedent that procedural prerequisites are waivable but found Hinde failed to show estoppel/waiver facts; dismissal as to Title VII was proper
CFEPA exhaustion requirement Hinde urged Connecticut should follow federal waiver approach and allow suit despite no CHRO release naming the defendant Defendant pointed to CFEPA statutory scheme vesting primary remedial role in CHRO and Connecticut precedent requiring exhaustion and CHRO release before Superior Court suit Court held Connecticut precedent controls: failure to pursue CHRO remedies or obtain a release as to that employer is a jurisdictional bar under CFEPA; dismissal was proper

Key Cases Cited

  • Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1982) (Title VII filing deadline is a procedural requirement, not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and is subject to waiver and equitable tolling)
  • Pietras v. Board of Fire Commissioners, 180 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 1999) (right‑to‑sue letter requirement treated as a precondition subject to equitable tolling/waiver)
  • Sullivan v. Board of Police Commissioners, 196 Conn. 208 (Conn. 1985) (CFEPA vests primary enforcement authority in CHRO; exhaustion/CHRO procedures are required before Superior Court action)
  • Barde v. Board of Trustees, 207 Conn. 59 (Conn. 1988) (when affidavits accompany a jurisdictional motion to dismiss, the court may consider undisputed affidavit facts in deciding jurisdiction)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Hinde v. Specialized Education of Connecticut, Inc.
Court Name: Connecticut Appellate Court
Date Published: Jan 28, 2014
Citations: 147 Conn. App. 730; 84 A.3d 895; 2014 WL 223705; 2014 Conn. App. LEXIS 23; AC35265
Docket Number: AC35265
Court Abbreviation: Conn. App. Ct.
Log In
    Hinde v. Specialized Education of Connecticut, Inc., 147 Conn. App. 730