Legal Opinion · Dissent
Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Truelove & MacLean, Inc.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 30, 1996No. 15375; 15376Published
1DissentBerdon, J.
The court continues to read narrowly the legislative grant of jurisdiction to the commission on human rights and opportunities (CHRO). See Bridgeport Hospital v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 232 Conn. 91, 653 A.2d 782 (1995); Fenn Mfg. Co. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 232 Conn. 117, 652 A.2d 1011 *355(1995).1 Not only am I unable to agree with the result reached by the court today, but I cannot accept its reasoning or its implicit rejection of the public policy concerns underlying today’s decision that the CHRO does not have jurisdiction to award compensatory…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. LarsenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Bridgeport Hospital v. Commission on Human Rights & OpportunitiesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Sullivan v. Board of Police CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- State v. Commission on Human Rights & OpportunitiesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Starr v. Commissioner of Environmental ProtectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.