When pursuing a claim through the CHRO, the first step is to file a formal complaint. The complaint is a sworn written statement that identifies the entity or person complained about and describes the alleged discriminatory act. A complainant can submit the complaint independently, with the guidance of an attorney, or with the assistance of CHRO staff. Once the complaint is filed, the respondent—meaning the entity or person alleged to have engaged in the conduct described in the complaint—will receive notice within twenty (20) days and have thirty (30) days to file a response (unless a fifteen-day extension is requested). Alongside the notice of complaint, a respondent will also receive initial information questions from the CHRO known as “Schedule A” questions. After the respondent files an answer, the complainant may submit a rebuttal to the answer. If an answer is not filed by the respondent, the CHRO can request and grant a default dismissal in the complainant’s favor.
Alternatively, if the parties mutually agree, they may opt for an early legal intervention process through the CHRO. This voluntary program enables the CHRO to assess if there is enough evidence for the case to directly advance to a public hearing, if the complainant should be given a release of jurisdiction, and if further investigation should be conducted by the CHRO.
In the absence of early legal intervention, the next step for an employment discrimination complaint is the CHRO’s Merit Assessment Review (MAR). Under the MAR process, the CHRO conducts an initial evaluation of the merits of a claim to determine if it meets basic legal requirements. In its assessment, the CHRO will review the complaint, answer, rebuttal, and related documentation to decide whether the complaint should be retained for a full investigation or dismissed. This process must occur within ninety (90) days of the respondent's answer to the complaint of discrimination. Additionally, complainants can request an expedited MAR process to seek a release of jurisdiction before the typical 180-day waiting period. Both parties can also secure a release of jurisdiction immediately after filing the complaint if they agree to such a request.
During the MAR, the CHRO evaluates the complaint using a four-part standard to determine:
- If the complaint fails to state a claim for relief;
- If the complaint is frivolous on its face;
- If the respondent is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 814c of the Connecticut General Statutes; and
- If there is no reasonable possibility that investigating the complaint will result in a finding of reasonable cause.
Most complaints filed with the CHRO withstand this initial MAR review, but retaining a claim does not imply that the CHRO believes discrimination has actually occurred. If a claim results in a dismissal after the MAR process, the complainant has fifteen (15) days to request a release of jurisdiction to enable them to pursue a private action in Superior Court. If no request is made, the CHRO legal department will review the complaint again to determine if it should be reinstated.
This secondary legal review is a CHRO safeguard procedure to ensure complainants receive due process. Following the second review, a complaint may be reinstated if credibility issues need resolution, witnesses require interviewing, documents should be provided, disputed factual matters need addressing, information in a Schedule A was not provided, or if the determination regarding lack of jurisdiction was flawed. If a complaint is reinstated, a letter is sent to the parties informing them of the reinstatement. If the complaint fails to be reinstated, a letter is also sent to the parties providing a release of jurisdiction. Upon receiving a release of jurisdiction, a complainant must file an action in court within ninety (90) days to continue pursuing the matter.
If a case is retained for investigation post-MAR, it proceeds to a mandatory mediation process. This mediation initiative, recently established as a new focus of the CHRO, is now mandated by state law. Shortly after the MAR, a mediator will be appointed to determine an appropriate method for mediation. Mediation may occur in-person, via email, or by telephone conference. Attendance is mandatory, but parties are not required to reach a settlement. The CHRO believes mandatory mediation will streamline complaints while fostering amicable resolutions for all involved.
If mediation is unsuccessful, the case is then assigned an investigator. Assigning a personal investigator is another new CHRO practice aimed at enhancing efficiency, fact-finding, voluntary resolution of complaints, and assessing if there is reasonable cause for believing that a discriminatory practice has occurred.
The investigator will decide the best approach for each case, determining whether a fact-finding conference or full investigation is warranted. Generally, CHRO investigators will schedule a fact-finding conference where parties meet with the investigator to provide information and answer case-related questions. Parties might be required to bring witnesses and supply specific documents for the CHRO’s review. Upon completion, the investigator will issue a decision based on the information presented. If a full investigation is deemed necessary, the process may involve document requests, witness interviews, and interrogatories. During this period, the investigator can subpoena documents and witnesses for examination.
After concluding the investigation, the CHRO investigator prepares and presents draft findings of reasonable or no reasonable cause to the parties. "Reasonable cause" implies a genuine belief that the material issues of fact are such that a person exercising ordinary caution, prudence, and judgment could deem the facts as alleged in the complaint plausible. The investigator has 190 days from the MAR decision date to make this determination. With good cause, this period may extend across two separate three-month periods, totaling an additional six months. This results in a maximum available duration of 370 days for making a determination of reasonable or no reasonable cause. Once the determination is made, each party has fifteen (15) days to respond. Following the 15-day response period, the investigator reviews the feedback to decide if further investigation is warranted. If no further investigation is needed, a final report is issued.
If reasonable cause is found and conciliation does not occur within fifty (50) days, the case is certified to the Office of Public Hearings. Within twenty (20) days from receiving the notice of reasonable cause finding, the complainant can elect a civil action in place of an administrative hearing. This action should begin within ninety (90) days of election. If no reasonable cause is found, or if the complaint is dismissed due to a failure to state a claim for relief, its frivolity, exemption of the respondent, or lack of reasonable investigative outcome expectations, the complainant may request reconsideration within fifteen (15) days. Reconsideration must be made or rejected within ninety (90) days of issuance of the finding or dismissal. Alternatively, the complainant can appeal the decision to the Superior Court.
If the complaint progresses to the public administrative hearing stage, no further timeframe is specified, except that once evidence collection is complete, the human rights referee presiding over the hearing must issue a decision within ninety (90) days. The CHRO Uniform Administrative Procedures Act calls for the hearing to advance with “reasonable dispatch.” Once the hearing concludes, the referee must issue a decision within ninety (90) days.
Should the referee determine a violation has occurred, they could order the respondent to cease and desist from the discriminatory practice; hire or reinstate employees; pay back wages; restore union membership; or take affirmative action deemed necessary by the referee to fulfill anti-discrimination laws. The Superior Court enforces this order upon proper petition. If the referee determines no violation, the complainant can appeal the decision to the Superior Court.
Expansion of Recoverable Damages
The Act Combatting Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment, effective October 1, 2019, now permits the CHRO to assess the damages experienced by the complainant, including the actual costs incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The legislation specifies that the attorneys’ fees will not be contingent on the amount of damages requested or awarded to the complainant. Furthermore, a referee can award back pay to an employee for up to two years before a complaint was filed with the CHRO. This legislation considerably broadens the remedies available administratively, enabling complainants to achieve damages more akin to those typically obtained in court actions. Additionally, as of October 1, 2019, the CHRO is authorized to have Commission Counsel bring a regulatory enforcement action in Connecticut Superior Court, instead of proceeding to an administrative hearing following a reasonable cause finding. This enforcement action is state-sponsored rather than a private complainant endeavor. If the Superior Court rules that an employer has committed a discriminatory act, with clear and convincing evidence, the court must issue a civil penalty, not exceeding $10,000, payable to the CHRO and allocated to eliminating discrimination.
Moreover, courts may award punitive damages to prevailing plaintiffs in discrimination cases, a significant shift from prior Connecticut Supreme Court precedent that forbade punitive damages awards in such cases. The Connecticut Superior Court now holds the authority to issue suitable legal and equitable relief, including temporary or permanent injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs. The specific types and amounts of damages will depend upon the case specifics. For an assessment of potential damages or strategies to limit damages, it is advisable to consult an attorney knowledgeable in employment law.
Requesting a Release of Jurisdiction
A complainant has the option of requesting a release of jurisdiction from a reviewing agency, enabling them to file a lawsuit in court. Before the Connecticut Superior Courts can exercise subject matter jurisdiction, individuals must seek redress through the initial CHRO assessment for discrimination claims. The CHRO can release jurisdiction to allow court proceedings for several reasons, including:
- The complainant and respondent jointly request the release any time from the filing of a complaint to 210 days after its filing;
- The complaint remains pending 210 days from its filing date;
- The complaint is dismissed following the MAR with no reconsideration request; or
- The case is dismissed due to the complainant’s failure to accept the respondent’s offer of “make whole relief.” Make whole relief involves the respondent ceasing the discriminatory practice, taking steps to prevent recurrence, and offering full relief to the complainant.
However, a complainant cannot request a release when the CHRO issues a no reasonable cause finding, when complaints are dismissed for failing to attend mandatory mediation, or in other dismissed cases.
If valid grounds exist for the request, the CHRO executive director must issue the release of jurisdiction within ten (10) days. Nonetheless, if scheduled for a public hearing, the director may opt to deny the release. Additionally, the director can defer release issuance for thirty (30) days if they anticipate resolution before the period's conclusion. If a matter remains pending with the CHRO for over twenty-one (21) months, the executive director must notify the complainant of their right to request a release from the CHRO to bring the case directly to Superior Court.
"Make Whole Relief"
During the CHRO complaint process, the respondent may offer “make whole relief,” reflecting the respondent's willingness to make the complainant whole per the CHRO investigator's view, not the complainant's. If such an offer is made and rejected by the complainant, the CHRO may dismiss the complaint.
Contact Us
If you have any questions regarding the CHRO and filing a workplace discrimination claim in Connecticut, or wish to consult an attorney regarding a legal matter, please contact Joseph C. Maya and the attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or Jmaya@mayalaw.com to arrange a free initial consultation.
