Any person who has filed a complaint with the commission in accordance with section
46a-82 and who has obtained a release of jurisdiction in accordance with section
46a-83a or
46a-101, may bring an action in the superior court for the judicial district in which the discriminatory practice is alleged to have occurred, the judicial district in which the respondent transacts business or the judicial district in which the complainant resides, except any action involving a state agency or official may be brought in the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford.
(P.A. 88-230, S. 1, 12; P.A. 90-98, S. 1, 2; P.A. 91-331, S. 1; P.A. 93-142, S. 4, 7, 8; P.A. 95-220, S. 4–6; P.A. 98-245, S. 6, 14; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 15-5, S. 84.)
History: (Revisor's note: P.A. 88-230 and P.A. 90-98 authorized substitution of “judicial district of Hartford” for “judicial district of Hartford-New Britain” in the general statutes and in the public and special acts of the 1991 session of the general assembly, effective September 1, 1993); P.A. 93-142 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1993, to September 1, 1996, effective June 14, 1993; P.A. 95-220 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1996, to September 1, 1998, effective July 1, 1995; P.A. 98-245 deleted phrase “alleging a violation of section 46a-60” and added reference to Sec. 46a-83a, effective July 1, 1998, and applicable to all cases pending with the commission or in the courts and cases filed on or after said date; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 15-5 substituted “filed a complaint with the commission” for “timely filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities”, substituted “release of jurisdiction” for “release from the commission”, added provision re action being brought in the judicial district in which complainant resides and made technical changes.
Section represents an unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity, authorizing actions against the state for alleged discriminatory employment practices in violation of Sec. 46a-60. 291 C. 384.
Cited. 44 CA 446. The provisions of section do not constitute a waiver of the state's immunity. 104 CA 547; judgment reversed, see 291 C. 384. Waiver of sovereign immunity under section does not extend to claims based on corresponding federal statute relating to age discrimination, namely the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. 153 CA 146.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
90
cases (
24 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case:
Lyon v. Jones, 968 A.2d 416 (Conn. 2009).
Lyon v. Jones, 968 A.2d 416 (Conn. 2009).
· cites it 17× “II We begin by noting that the remaining issue of whether General Statutes § 46a-100 waives sovereign immunity for actions brought under § 46a-60 concerns a question of statutory construction over which we exercise plenary review.”
Ware v. State, 983 A.2d 853 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 14× “The defendant argues that its “failure to exhaust” argument presents a colorable claim of sovereign immunity because General Statutes § 46a-100 provides a waiver of sovereign immunity only to those persons who have received a release of jurisdiction.”
Anderson v. Derby Bd. of Educ., 718 F. Supp. 2d 258 (D. Conn. 2010).
· cites it 7× “” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46a-100. No action may be brought in accordance with the statute “unless the complainant has received a release from the commission.”
Malasky v. Metal Prods. Corp., 689 A.2d 1145 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997).
· cites it 8× “On June 8, 1994, the plaintiff received a release of jurisdiction from the CHRO pursuant to General Statutes § 46a-101, 4 permitting her to bring a civil action *449 against Metal and Birken in Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 46a-100. 5 On October 28, 1994, the…”
Brittell v. Dep't of Corr., 717 A.2d 1254 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 5× “After having first procured the statutorily required release from the commission on human rights and opportunities; see General Statutes §§ 46a-100 21 and 46a-101 (a); 22 the plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages and other relief 23 from the defendant for alleged…”
Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 153 A.3d 615 (Conn. 2016).
· cites it 4× “The amount of attorney's fees allowed shall not be contingent upon the amount of damages requested by or awarded to the complainant.”
Boyles v. Preston, 792 A.2d 878 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 5× “nt pleaded a special defense in which he claimed that the allegations of that count constitute a claim of sexual harassment, as defined in General Statutes § 46a-60 (a) (5) 4 and (8), 5 and that the action was barred because the plaintiff never filed a complaint with the…”
Jackson v. Water Pollution Control Auth., 900 A.2d 498 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 3× “After receiving the statutorily required release from the commission; see General Statutes §§ 46a-100 and 46a-101; the plaintiff brought the present action for damages, claiming that the defendant’s discharge and suspension of the plaintiff: (1) constituted discrimination on the…”
Thames Talent, Ltd. v. Comm'n On Human Rights & Opportunities, 827 A.2d 659 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 4× “Thames Talent maintains that General Statutes §§ 46a-100 through 46a-104, which permit a complainant who alleges workplace discrimination to bring a civil action in Superior Court upon obtaining a release from the commission, support its construction of § 46a-86 (b). In…”
Lee v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 939 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Conn. 2013).
· cites it 4× “§ 46a-100 (emphasis added). Section 46a-82, referenced above, permits “[a]ny person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged discriminatory practice” — including violations of the CFEPA, Conn.”
Bogdahn v. Hamilton Stan. Space Sys., No. Cv 97-0569864-S (July 21, 1999), 741 A.2d 1003 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999).
· cites it 14× “98-245), the Connecticut General Assembly revised General Statutes § 46a-100 to provide in pertinent part: “Any person who has timely filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities in accordance with section 46a-82 and who has obtained a release from the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.