180 Conn. App. 478
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- The Metropolitan District (plaintiff), a municipally created water/waste management entity treated as a state agency for certain nondiscrimination statutes, sued the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus, alleging CHRO routinely assumed jurisdiction and failed to perform merit assessments under § 46a‑83 and related regulations.
- The complaint rested both on alleged general "routine practices" by the CHRO and on five specific administrative matters in which the plaintiff was a respondent (three of which—Sotil, Cipes, Wills—were pending when this action was filed).
- Plaintiff sought declarations that CHRO lacked jurisdiction over complaints by independent contractors and that § 46a‑71 did not apply to it; it also sought injunctions and a mandate to review files for improper practices.
- CHRO moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), including petitioning for a declaratory ruling (§ 4‑176) or appealing agency decisions (§ 4‑183).
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss; the appellate panel reviewed whether (1) administrative remedies were available and required, and (2) any exceptions (futility, jurisdictional challenge, § 1983) excused exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether administrative remedies under UAPA were available and required before filing this independent declaratory action | Metro. Dist. argued it could bring an independent declaratory action in Superior Court to challenge CHRO practices | CHRO argued plaintiff must exhaust UAPA remedies (request § 4‑176 declaratory ruling or pursue defenses in pending proceedings and appeal under § 4‑183) | Held: Remedies were available and plaintiff had to exhaust them because three pending CHRO proceedings concerned the same conduct forming the basis of the complaint; dismissal proper |
| Whether futility/inadequacy exception to exhaustion applied | Metro. Dist. claimed administrative process would be futile/ inadequate and unlikely to vindicate it | CHRO argued plaintiff could raise defenses in pending matters and, if adverse, appeal under § 4‑183; futility not shown | Held: Futility exception not shown — plaintiff failed to demonstrate administrative forum could not grant relief; speculation of bias/likely loss insufficient |
| Whether a jurisdictional challenge to CHRO obviates exhaustion | Metro. Dist. argued jurisdictional challenges permit bypassing exhaustion | CHRO argued agency must first determine its own jurisdiction and that § 4‑183 provides review | Held: Broad jurisdictional exception rejected; agency must be given initial opportunity to decide jurisdiction and then plaintiff may appeal under § 4‑183 |
| Whether including a § 1983 due‑process claim and requests for injunction/mandamus excuse exhaustion | Metro. Dist. relied on Patsy to argue § 1983 claim avoids exhaustion | CHRO pointed to Connecticut precedent requiring inadequacy of legal remedies before injunction; UAPA remedies adequate | Held: § 1983 count did not avoid exhaustion — state precedent requires exhaustion/inadequacy showing and no such showing was made |
Key Cases Cited
- Republican Party of Connecticut v. Merrill, 307 Conn. 470 (Conn. 2012) (explaining exhaustion under UAPA and that failure to seek agency declaratory ruling deprives court of jurisdiction)
- Financial Consulting, LLC v. Commissioner of Ins., 315 Conn. 196 (Conn. 2014) (holding declaratory procedures under §§ 4‑175/4‑176 unavailable to bypass a pending administrative proceeding concerning same conduct)
- Greater Bridgeport Transit Dist. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 211 Conn. 129 (Conn. 1989) (holding CHRO investigations are pending administrative proceedings requiring exhaustion)
- Pet v. Dept. of Health Services, 207 Conn. 346 (Conn. 1988) (discussing adequacy of administrative remedies and availability of § 4‑183 review, and limits on injunctive relief absent inadequate remedy)
- Polymer Resources, Ltd. v. Keeney, 227 Conn. 545 (Conn. 1993) (plaintiff must request agency relief before seeking judicial review where statutory remedy exists)
- Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1938) (federal exhaustion principle: no judicial relief until administrative remedies exhausted)
- Patsy v. Board of Regents of the State of Florida, 457 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1982) (held § 1983 actions need not exhaust state administrative remedies; discussed and limited by Connecticut precedent)