Skip to main content

Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Cantillon

Conn. App. Ct.September 21, 2021No. AC43534Cited 4 times
RemandedCantillon
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Alvord; Alexander; Vertefeuille
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Discrimination

Excerpt

The defendant H filed a complaint with the plaintiff Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities alleging discrimination in housing because of race against the defendant C, her neighbor in a condominium complex. C was defaulted in the underlying administrative proceeding. At the hearing in damages, the plaintiff commission requested $75,000 in com- pensatory damages. The human rights referee of the defendant Commis- sion on Human Rights and Opportunities awarded H, inter alia, $15,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress. The plaintiff commission filed a request for the referee to reconsider her decision, which request was deemed denied after the referee failed to take further action. The plaintiff commission then appealed the referee's decision, claiming, pri- marily, that the damages awarded were insufficient. The trial court remanded the matter for further consideration of damages in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Patino v. Birken Mfg. Co. (304 Conn. 679). On remand, the referee issued a final decision that did not change the amount of the damages awarded. The administrative appeal was then argued before the trial court, which rendered judgment dismissing the appeal and affirming the referee's decision. On the plaintiff commis- sion's appeal to this court, held that the referee did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in her decision and the trial court did not abuse its discre- tion in dismissing the plaintiff commission's appeal and affirming the referee's decision: neither the referee nor the trial court misinterpreted or misapplied Patino in the determination of emotional distress dam- ages, as Patino did not establish a presumptive or mandatory range of damages for emotional distress claims but merely addressed a general range that such claims typically merit, references to that range in other cases did not establish any binding principle pertaining to damage awards in emotional distress actions, the fact that the emotional distress damag

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** This case involved a housing discrimination complaint, not an employment dispute. A resident named H filed a complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, claiming their neighbor C discriminated against them based on race in their condominium complex. When C failed to participate in the administrative hearing process, they were found in default. The Commission then held a hearing to determine damages and requested $75,000 in compensation for H. **What the Court Decided** The court remanded (sent back) the case to a lower court or administrative body for further proceedings. A human rights referee had initially awarded H $15,000 in compensatory damages, but the excerpt doesn't provide the complete details of the court's final ruling on the remand. **What This Means for Workers** While this case dealt with housing rather than workplace discrimination, it demonstrates how human rights commissions investigate and award damages for discrimination complaints. Workers facing discrimination can file similar complaints with these agencies. The case shows that even when someone doesn't respond to discrimination charges, victims can still receive compensation, though courts may review the damage awards to ensure they're appropriate.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.