Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Cantillon
Decision Date | 21 September 2021 |
Docket Number | AC 43534 |
Citation | 207 Conn.App. 668,263 A.3d 887 |
Parties | COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES v. Richard CANTILLON et al. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Michael E. Roberts, human rights attorney, for the plaintiff (appellant).
Charles Krich, principal attorney, for the appellee (defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities).
William Tong, attorney general, Clare E. Kindall, solicitor general, and Colleen B. Valentine and Matthew F. Larock, assistant attorneys general, filed a brief for the state of Connecticut as amicus curiae.
Alvord, Alexander and Vertefeuille, Js.
The plaintiff, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (plaintiff commission), appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing its administrative appeal from the final decision of the defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (defendant commission).1 On appeal, the plaintiff commission argues that the Superior Court erred in dismissing its administrative appeal because the human rights referee (referee) and the Superior Court (1) misinterpreted and misapplied Patino v. Birken Mfg. Co. , 304 Conn. 679, 41 A.3d 1013 (2012), in the calculation of emotional distress damages, and (2) misapplied the factors set forth in Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Harrison v. Greco , CHRO No. 7930433 (June 3, 1985) pp. 7–8, in the determination of emotional distress damages. We are unpersuaded and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
The following facts, as found by the Superior Court, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. (Footnote omitted.) The administrative appeal subsequently was briefed and argued before the Superior Court. On October 2, 2019, the Superior Court rendered a judgment and accompanying memorandum of law dismissing the appeal and affirming the referee's decision. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
We begin our analysis by setting forth our standard of review. The plaintiff commission appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing its administrative appeal and affirming the decision of the referee. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dept. of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission , 298 Conn. 703, 716, 6 A.3d 763 (2010). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chairperson, Connecticut Medical Examining Board v. Freedom of Information Commission , 310 Conn. 276, 281, 77 A.3d 121 (2013).
In the present case, both parties ask us to reverse the referee's award of damages and the Superior Court's affirmance thereof. Specifically, both parties claim that the referee misapplied Patino and the Harrison factors in its determination of damages. We note that both the plaintiff commission and the defendant commission argue that they have raised pure questions of law such that we must exercise our plenary review over their claims. We disagree with this assertion. The present case does not present a pure question of law because it requires the review of the referee's award of damages, which constitutes a question of fact. See Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District , 235 Conn. 1, 28, 664 A.2d 719 (1995). Accordingly, "the factual and discretionary determinations of administrative agencies are to be given considerable weight by the courts [and] ... it is for the courts, and not for administrative agencies, to expound and apply governing principles of law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Board of Education v. Freedom of Information Commission , 217 Conn. 153, 159, 585 A.2d 82 (1991) ; see also General Statutes § 4-183 (j). We iterate that we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the referee and our ultimate duty is to decide only if the referee "acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of [her] discretion" and that any conclusion of law must stand if we determine that it "resulted from a correct application of the law to the facts found ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Meriden v. Freedom of Information Commission , 338 Conn. 310, 319, 258 A.3d 1 (2021).
The plaintiff commission first argues that the referee and the Superior Court misinterpreted and misapplied Patino v. Birken Mfg. Co. , supra, 304 Conn. 679, 41 A.3d 1013, in the calculation of emotional distress damages. The plaintiff commission contends that Patino stands for the proposition that in "garden variety" emotional distress claims, there is a presumptive monetary range of damages between $30,000 and $125,000. See id., at 708, 41 A.3d 1013. The plaintiff commission argues that, because the referee did not "consider analogous decisions from neighboring tribunals" and the damage award in the present case fell below this range, the referee committed an "error of law." The defendant commission argues similarly. We disagree with the parties’ interpretation of Patino .
An analysis of Patino v. Birken Mfg. Co. , supra, 304 Conn. 679, 41 A.3d 1013, will facilitate our review of the parties’ arguments. In Patino , the central issue on appeal was "whether General Statutes § 46a-81c (1) imposes liability on employers for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent their employees from being subjected to hostile work environments based on their sexual orientation." (Footnote omitted.) Id., at 682, 41 A.3d 1013. Our Supreme Court determined that it did and concluded that the phrase " ‘terms, conditions or privileges of employment’ constitutes a term of art with a fixed legal meaning" and the use of that phrase in § 46a-81c (1) evidenced the legislature's intent to permit hostile work environment claims under the statute. Id., at 697, 41 A.3d 1013.
A tertiary claim on appeal was whether "the trial court, in denying the motion to set aside the verdict and the motion for remittitur, abused its discretion by concluding that the $94,500 noneconomic damages award was supported by the evidence and was not excessive." Id., at 705, 41 A.3d 1013. In its analysis of this claim, our Supreme Court concluded that, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Cortes v. Valentin
...producing the maximum pain, embarrassment and humiliation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Cantillon , 207 Conn. App. 668, 680, 263 A.3d 887 (quoting Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan Associates , Superior Court, judici......
- NRT New Eng., LLC v. Longo
-
Kiyak v. Department of Agriculture
...and logically follow from such facts." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Cantillon , 207 Conn. App. 668, 672, 263 A.3d 887, cert. granted, 340 Conn. 909, 264 A.3d 94 (2021)."It is fundamental that a plaintiff has the burden o......
-
Oral Care Dental Grp. II, LLC v. Pallet
...and logically follow from such facts." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Cantillon , 207 Conn. App. 668, 672, 263 A.3d 887, cert. granted, 340 Conn. 909, 264 A.3d 94 (2021).9 Claims for garden-variety emotional distress "are ......