Understanding Disparate Treatment in Connecticut

What Is Disparate Treatment?

“The United States Supreme Court has set forth three theories of discrimination, each of which requires a different prima facie case and corresponding burden of proof. These theories are: (1) the [pretext] theory ... (2) the disparate impact theory ... and (3) the [mixed motives] theory.” (Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities v. City of Hartford, 138 Conn. App. 141, 155 n.10 [Conn. App. Ct. 2012] citingCommission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan,285 Conn. 208, 225–26, 939 A.2d 541 [2008][citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted].)

“The disparate impact theory applies to patterns and practices which are facially neutral but discriminatory as applied, and does not require evidence of subjective intent to discriminate.” (Miko v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 220 Conn. 192, 203 n.8 [Conn. 1991] quoting Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 645-46, 109 S.Ct. 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 733 [1989].)

Important Note on Federal Precedent and State Claims of Employment Discrimination

“In Connecticut, the courts ‘review federal precedent concerning employment discrimination for guidance in enforcing our own antidiscrimination statutes.’” (Levy v. Commission on Human Rights Opportunities, 236 Conn. 96, 103, 671 A.2d 349 [1996].)

Understanding Burdens of Proof in Employment Disparate Treatment Cases

“If an employer has a neutral employment policy or practice, a complainant charging either disparate treatment or disparate impact bears the ultimate burden of persuading the trier that he has been the victim of discriminatory action yin [sic] the face of the employer's articulation of a non-discriminatory ground for the suspected action.” (Wroblewski v. Lexington Gardens, Inc., 188 Conn. 44, 68-69 [Conn. 1982] citing Cf. Phillips Co. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490, 493, 65 S.Ct. 807, 89 L.Ed. 1095 (1945); note, "Developments in the Law — Employment Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," 84 Harv. L. Rev. 1109, 1169 n. 22 [1971].)

“If, on the other hand, an employer has engaged in a practice which is facially discriminatory or in a pattern of discrimination in the past, then in order to effectuate the governmental policy of eradicating discriminatory treatment or practices, it is appropriate in the individual case of claimed discrimination for the employer to bear the ultimate burden of showing that its rejection of the individual complainant was due to nondiscriminatory causes.” (Id.)

“Sensitivity to the fundamental policy considerations underlying the Discriminatory Employment Practices Act requires that the victim of such practices be treated as more than merely a sacrificial lamb for future benefit of others similarly situated.”

Current as of May 1, 2024 | Updated by Trellis Law Content Team

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information and is subject to change without notice.

Documents for Disparate Treatment in Connecticut

Sort By

COYNE, VIVIENE v. THE JEWISH HOME FOR THE ELDERLY OF FAIRFIELD COUNT document preview

COMPLAINT

13 pages

IRETURN DATE: JULY 9, 2024 VIVIENE COYNE, SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff, J.D. OF BRIDGEPORT AT BRIDGEPORT V. THE JEWISH HOME FOR THE ELDERLY OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, INC., Defendant. …

Case Name COYNE, VIVIENE v. THE JEWISH HOME FOR THE ELDERLY OF FAIRFIELD COUNT

Understanding Disparate Treatment in Connecticut

What Is Disparate Treatment?

Important Note on Federal Precedent and State Claims of Employment Discrimination

Understanding Burdens of Proof in Employment Disparate Treatment Cases

Documents for Disparate Treatment in Connecticut

Related Legal Topics for Disparate Treatment in Connecticut