The Connecticut General Assembly is considering legislation that, if passed, would allow employees to file discrimination and harassment claims directly in state court thereby circumventing the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities altogether. The law presently requires that all discrimination and harassment claims are filed with the CHRO first. If an employee wants to pursue her claim in state court, she must then wait until 210 days have elapsed. Only then can the employee request a release of jurisdiction from the CHRO to sue in state court.
The new legislation also would significantly extend the timeframe for filing discrimination and harassment cases in state court to two years. Presently, the statute of limitations for filing a claim at the CHRO is 180 days. To read the full text of the bill, click here. We will be sure to provide updates as developments with the bill occur.
Tags: CHRO, Connecticut, Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, discrimination, General Assembly, harassment, legislation, statute of limitations
I’m not familiar with your organization but would be interested in your input on this matter.
Thanks,
Jim O’Neill
Legislative Liaison & Media Spokesman
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
21 Grand Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(o) 860-241-4866
(c) 860-539-7493
james.j.oneill@ct.gov
If enacted as written, the legislation is likely to lead to confusion on the part of employees on where to file and what limitations period applies. For instance, the bill appears to retain the 180 day limitations period for complaints filed at the CHRO yet significantly expands the limitations period to 2 years for employees who choose to file in court.
Additionally, it is unclear whether an employee who first filed at the CHRO would even need to wait over 210 days to obtain a release of jurisdiction to file in court. It would seem that the waiting period would no longer apply.
navigating through CHRO is a complete waste of time. legislation that would eliminate this costly, time consuming and fruitless impediment to redress for violated employess would be a welcome change and most overdue.