144 Conn. App. 861
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Ajmal Mehdi, pro se, filed a discrimination complaint against the Associated Press (AP) alleging denial of services based in part on his religious beliefs under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-64(a)(1).
- AP responded that the conduct alleged was outside the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities’ (CHRO) statutory mandate and implicated constitutional protections.
- CHRO conducted a merit assessment under § 46a-83(b), concluded AP was exempt from its jurisdiction, and dismissed the complaint; CHRO denied reconsideration, citing First Amendment editorial discretion.
- Mehdi administratively appealed to Superior Court; the court conducted de novo review, dismissed the appeal, and held that compelling AP to publish would violate the First Amendment.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding CHRO properly dismissed the complaint because requiring publication would unconstitutionally interfere with editorial judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CHRO had jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim that AP denied press coverage based on religion | Mehdi: AP’s refusal to publish his religious articles is denial of services under § 46a-64 | CHRO/AP: AP is not a place of public accommodation and editorial decisions are constitutionally protected | Held: CHRO correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because compelling publication would violate the First Amendment |
| Whether CHRO’s dismissal violated free exercise or anti-discrimination law | Mehdi: Denial of publication was discrimination based on religion | CHRO: Even if discriminatory in intent, forcing publication infringes press freedoms | Held: First Amendment protection of editorial discretion bars CHRO from requiring publication |
| Whether CHRO should have dismissed for failure to state a claim instead of jurisdictional grounds | Mehdi: (implicit) complaint should proceed | CHRO: Alternatively, complaint fails to state a claim if no discriminatory publication occurred | Held: Court affirmed result on First Amendment grounds; alternative grounds unnecessary to resolve but proper outcome supports dismissal |
| Standard of review for CHRO’s subject-matter determination | Mehdi: (implicit) de novo review appropriate | CHRO: subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law | Held: Review is plenary; court properly applied legal standard to conclude CHRO acted within statutory and constitutional limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Miami Herald Publ. Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) (government may not compel a newspaper to publish content; editorial discretion protected)
- Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973) (affirmed protection of editorial judgment and free expression of views)
- Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945) (news organizations are not required to publish material they deem inappropriate)
- Rweyemamu v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 98 Conn. App. 646 (2006) (administrative bodies have limited statutory jurisdiction; subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law)