351 Conn. 298
Conn.2025Background
- John Ward filed a complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) alleging job discrimination by the City of Stamford, based on veteran status and disability.
- During hearing proceedings, Ward moved to amend his complaint to add a claim of failure to provide reasonable accommodations; the hearing referee granted this motion over Stamford’s objection.
- The City of Stamford filed an administrative appeal in Superior Court, arguing the referee’s ruling was a final, appealable decision or, alternatively, appealable as an interlocutory order.
- The CHRO and Ward moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the referee’s amendment order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory action under the relevant statutes.
- The trial court denied the motions to dismiss, finding the referee’s order to be a final, appealable decision; the CHRO and Ward appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court on certified questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the referee’s ruling allowing amendment is a “final order” appealable under CFEPA and UAPA | City: The referee’s order is a final decision or, in the alternative, an appealable interlocutory order because waiting would deny the City a right not to litigate a claim added without jurisdiction. | CHRO/Ward: The referee’s ruling is not a final decision but a preliminary, procedural, or intermediate order; interlocutory appeals are not warranted absent an inadequate remedy, which is not the case here. | Not appealable: The referee’s order was neither a final agency decision nor an appealable interlocutory order; appeal dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission, 259 Conn. 131 (addresses distinction between final decisions and interlocutory agency orders)
- State v. State Employees’ Review Board, 231 Conn. 391 (discusses factors for determining finality of agency action)
- New Haven v. New Haven Police Union Local 530, 210 Conn. 597 (examines finality and appealability in administrative proceedings)
- Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 202 Conn. 150 (application of final decision concept in CHRO cases)
- Trinity Christian School v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 329 Conn. 684 (scope of interlocutory appeals in CHRO proceedings)