46 Conn. Supp. 153 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1999
The fourth count as to Mark Bond only alleges that he was an employee of Hamilton and between September 1993 and June 1994, he conspired with Bruce McGarry to harass, ridicule, discriminate, batter and cause injury to Mr. Pelletier based upon his sexual orientation. It is further alleged that the actions taken by Bond were done as an agent of Hamilton. These actions, it is claimed, violate C.G.S. §§
"A timely filed complaint under oath is sufficient when the commission receives from the person making the complaint a written statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties and to describe generally the action or practices complained of which have occurred, are occurring, or are about to occur and when." (Emphasis added);
And C.G.S. §
"(a) any person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged discriminatory practice, except for an alleged violation of §
46a-68 , may, by himself or his attorney, make, sign and file with the commission a complaint in writing under oath, which shall state the name and address of the person alleged to have committed the discriminatory practice, and which shall set forth the particulars thereof and contain such other information as may be required by the commission."
No where in the statute or regulation is there a requirement that the specific statute be named.
Further, it is clear that these requirements must be liberally interpreted. The Court has reviewed the administrative complaint and finds that it complies with the statutory and regulatory requirements with sufficient specificity. It describes the sexual discrimination as being based on sexual orientation and even cites C.G.S. §
"It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section: (1) For an employer, by himself or his agent, except in the case of a bona fide occupational qualification or need, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment any individual or to discriminate against him in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of the individual's sexual orientation." Emphasis added. CT Page 9537
The Defendants' claim that the administrative, complaint could not have been asserted under C.G.S. §
This Court also finds that the complaint in this action cites C.G.S. §
By
The defendants claim that the plaintiff did not have a valid cause of action when he originally filed suit in both federal and state court. The defendants argue that the legislature did not intend to permit a cause of action that was improperly before the court to continue.
"It is an axiom of statutory construction that legislative intent is to be determined by an analysis of the language actually used in the legislation."
Vaillancourt v. New Britain Machine/Litton,
Additionally, the defendants argue that the legislature specifically excluded plaintiffs who received a release to sue under §
A release under General Statutes §
It is apparent that there are inconsistencies regarding releases to sue within Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. For example, General Statutes §
Alternatively, under §
Assuming arguendo that a release specifying §
Also, if there was a mistake by the CHRO in issuing the wrong release, it would be fundamentally unfair and contrary to the legislative intent to bar the plaintiff from proceeding with a private cause of action because of such mistake.
Finally §
For the foregoing reasons this court concludes that the plaintiff did have and does have a private cause of action.
For all of the above stated reasons, the Defendants' motion to strike the first and fourth counts of the complaint is denied.
Rittenband, J.