Employee (judicial marshal) prevailed on sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims under state and federal law, receiving back pay and attorney's fees, but emotional distress damages and reinstatement injunction were vacated on appeal; prejudgment and postjudgment interest awards were also vacated due to sovereign immunity.
Pursuant to statute (§ 46a-58 (a)), ''[i]t shall be a discriminatory practice . . . for any person to subject, or cause to be subjected, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities, secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of this state or of the United States, on account of . . . sex . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute ((Supp. 2012) § 46a-86 (b)), ''upon a finding of a discriminatory employment practice, the [human rights referee] may order the hiring or reinstatement of employees, with or without back pay . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute ((Supp. 2012) § 46a-86 (c)), ''upon a finding of a discriminatory practice prohibited by section 46a-58 . . . the [referee] shall determine the damage suffered by the complainant . . . as a result of such discriminatory practice and shall allow reasonable attorney's fees and costs.'' The named defendant, G, who is employed as a judicial marshal by the plaintiff, the Connecticut Judicial Branch, filed a complaint with the defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities in connec- tion with her allegations that another judicial marshal, M, had subjected her to severe and pervasive sexual harassment while they were stationed together at a particular courthouse. Specifically, G alleged that the branch discriminated against her on the basis of her gender by subjecting her to a hostile work environment, failing to investigate her allegations and to take remedial steps to protect her, and retaliating against her for making her complaint by reassigning her to courthouses farther from her residence. G claimed that the branch's misconduct violated the employment discrimination statute (§ 46a-60), as well as the general antidiscrimination statute, § 46a-58 (a), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), as a predicate for G's claim under § 46a-58 (a), insofar as § 46a-58 (a) includes within its ambit
Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert: Court Ruling Summary
What Happened
A judicial marshal working for Connecticut's court system filed a discrimination complaint, alleging she faced sexual harassment and was forced to work in a hostile environment because of her sex. The employee also claimed the employer retaliated against her for reporting the harassment and failed to properly investigate her complaints.
What the Court Decided
The court ruled in the employee's favor on the sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims. She received back pay (wages owed) and attorney's fees totaling $50,000. However, the court limited some remedies on appeal—it removed the emotional distress damages award and rejected an order requiring the employer to rehire her. It also cancelled additional interest payments owed to the employee due to the government employer's sovereign immunity status.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case demonstrates that workers can win harassment claims even against government employers. However, the appeal outcome shows that remedies may be limited—workers might receive lost wages and legal fees but face challenges getting other damages or reinstatement. Employees facing workplace harassment should understand that victory is possible, though final awards may differ from initial rulings.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 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.