Legal Opinion
Greater Bridgeport Transit District v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided May 9, 1989No. 13620PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Per curiam
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether an employer charged with age discrimination may seek injunctive relief to avoid responding to interrogatories propounded by the administrative agency authorized to investigate such complaints. The defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) received a complaint from the defendant Frank T. Comparato, charging that the plaintiff, Greater Bridgeport Transit District, had discharged Comparato because of his age, in violation of General Statutes § 46a-60 (a) (1).1 In order to investigate the merits of the Comparato complaint, the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & TrantoloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Pet v. Department of Health ServicesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Concerned Citizens of Sterling v. Town of SterlingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- LaCroix v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Ajello v. MoffieSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Greater Bridgeport Transit District v. Local Union 1336Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Metropolitan District v. Commission on Human Rights & OpportunitiesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018
- Blue Cross of Conn. v. Comm'n on Human Rights, No. 090701 (Nov. 8, 1990)Connecticut Superior Court · 1990
- Celano v. Burns, Comm'r of Transportation, No. 51 55 43 (Jan. 23, 1991)Connecticut Superior Court · 1991
- Doyle v. Comm'r, Environmental Prot., No. Cv-90-59945-S (Apr. 5, 1991)Connecticut Superior Court · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.