No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Connecticut appellate court reversed the trial court's vacation of the damages award, reinstating the human rights referee's decision awarding the employee back pay and garden-variety emotional distress damages for sexual harassment and discrimination.
The defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities appealed from the judgment of the trial court vacating the damages award granted by its human rights referee to the defendant employee, P, for garden- variety emotional distress in a sexual harassment complaint against the plaintiff employer. During a public hearing before the referee, P testified that the harassing and discriminatory conduct of M, who was her direct supervisor while she was employed by the plaintiff, made her feel uncom- fortable, stressed, and nervous and caused her to become depressed. On direct examination, she was not asked about, and did not testify regarding, any medical treatment that she received relating to her depres- sion. On cross-examination, however, the plaintiff's counsel questioned P regarding the professional treatment that she sought as a result of the emotional distress M had caused and asked why she had not pro- duced any medical records relating to such treatment. The plaintiff's counsel continued this line of questioning even after the referee ruled that P was not required to produce any medical records because she was claiming only garden-variety emotional distress. With the exception of her testimony in response to the questions of the plaintiff's counsel, P did not offer any evidence regarding her medical treatment. The referee found in favor of P and awarded her back pay and damages for garden- variety emotional distress. The plaintiff appealed to the trial court, which vacated the referee's damages award, and the commission appealed to this court. Held that the trial court erred when it vacated the referee's damages award because it incorrectly concluded that the plaintiff was prejudiced by P's failure to disclose her medical records: the referee did not abuse her discretion when she awarded P damages for garden- variety emotional distress because our Supreme Court in Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert (343 Conn. 90) made clear that, where a claimant limits h
Court Rules Employee Deserves Damages for Sexual Harassment
What Happened
An employee at Oral Care Dental Group II, LLC experienced sexual harassment and discrimination from her supervisor. She filed a complaint with Connecticut's human rights agency, which investigated and found the harassment occurred. A hearing officer decided she deserved compensation for her emotional distress and lost wages.
What the Court Decided
The trial court initially canceled the damages award, but Connecticut's appellate court reversed that decision. The higher court reinstated the original compensation, requiring the employer to pay the employee for her back pay and emotional distress caused by the harassment and discrimination.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling affirms that employees who experience sexual harassment and discrimination at work can receive financial compensation for the harm caused. The court confirmed that emotional distress from workplace harassment is a legitimate injury deserving payment. The decision strengthens worker protections by ensuring that even when lower courts question damages awards, higher courts will review those decisions carefully to protect victims of workplace harassment.
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.