Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 46a — HUMAN RIGHTS · Chapter 814c — Human Rights and Opportunities
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-64a (2026)

(Formerly Sec. 47a-2a). Discrimination against families with children prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 46a-64a is repealed.

(P.A. 80-449, S. 1, 2, 6; P.A. 81-81, S. 1; P.A. 90-246, S. 15.)

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1983–2015 · leading case: Miko v. Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities, 596 A.2d 396 (Conn. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Miko v. Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities, 596 A.2d 396 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 10× “to 1987) § 46a-64a, 1 because she had a child. A hearing officer appointed *195 by the CHRO upheld Melendez’ claim and awarded her damages.”
AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Town of Orange, 775 A.2d 284 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 2× “Similarly, this court has applied the prima facie case established in McDonnell Douglas to housing discrimination claims brought under General Statutes § 46a-64a. See Miko v. Commission *594 on Human Rights & Opportunities, supra, 220 Conn.”
Hillcroft Partners v. Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities, 533 A.2d 852 (Conn. 1987). · cites it 2× “ement Corporation, appealed to the Superior Court from an order of the defendant commission on human rights and opportunities (CHRO) implementing its finding that the policy of the plaintiff landlord and rental agent in limiting occupancy of their three-bedroom apartments to no…”
Jones v. O'connell, 458 A.2d 355 (Conn. 1983). “1 At trial, the plaintiffs also pursued a count charging the defendants with violation of General Statutes § 47a-2a (now § 46a-64a) enacted in 1980, which forbids discrimination against families with children.”
Traylor v. Awwa, 899 F. Supp. 2d 216 (D. Conn. 2012). “10, 2009) (Section 46a-64a “was meant only to be enforced through fines or imprisonment, .”
Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Echo Hose Ambulance (Conn. App. Ct. 2015). “Similar to CFEPA, Title VII defines an employee as an individual employed by an employer. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (f) (2012). Faced with the apparent ambiguity in that language, several federal circuit courts of appeal have adopted a ‘‘remuneration’’ test as a threshold requirement…”
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.