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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-69 (2026)

Discriminatory practices by state

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It shall be a discriminatory practice to violate any of the provisions of sections 46a-70 to 46a-78, inclusive.

(P.A. 80-422, S. 17.)

Cited. 16 CA 379.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Bd. of Educ., 855 A.2d 212 (Conn. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Bd. of Educ., 855 A.2d 212 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 4× “…certain specific discrimination statutes— such as those prohibiting discriminatory practices by state agencies; see General Statutes §§ 46a-69 through 46a-76 and §§ 46a-81g through 46a-81n; in § 46a-86 (c) provides no guidance to this court as to whether the remedy provided…”
Brittell v. Dep't of Corr., 717 A.2d 1254 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 46a-69 provides: “Discriminatory practices by state.”
Paschal-Barros v. Quiros (D. Conn. 2022). · cites it 10× “Chapter 319i, and under Conn. Gen. Stat. §46a-69 and §46a-77(c). Plaintiff also alleges that defendants “violate[d] the plaintiff’s state constitutional rights to Equal Protection and Amendment XXI[.”
Goode v. Salius (D. Conn. 2024). · cites it 6× “Connecticut General Statutes § 46a-64 and § 46a-77 Plaintiff alleges violations of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-69 and § 46a-77(c) against the DOC and the individual Defendants in their official capacities.”
Paschal-Barros v. Rosenberg (D. Conn. 2022). · cites it 2× “• Violations of Conn. Gen. Stat. §46a-69 and §46a-77(c) against both defendants in their official capacities, for damages, based on allegations that they refused to treat plaintiff because of his mental disabilities.”
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.