 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Perodeau v. City of Hartford3/26/2002
nternational Dictionary (2d Ed.). It would defy common sense to conclude that the legislature intended in § 46a-51 (10) to change the common meaning of the word ''employer'' to include ''persons'' who do not employ anyone, while excluding ''employers'' who employ fewer than three employees. Indeed, the very fact that the legislature used the term ''employer'' within its definition of ''employer'' in § 46a51 (10) indicates that it intended the word to have its common meaning, and that the definition was intended merely to narrow the class of ''employers''--understood in its ordinary sense--to which the Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq., applies. Otherwise, the definition would be internally inconsistent.
We further note that the legislature recently amended § 46a-51 (10) by substituting the phrase ''person's or employer's'' for the word ''his,'' so that, effective October 1, 2001, that section provides: '' 'Employer' includes the state and all political subdivisions thereof and means any person or employer with three or more persons in such person's or employer's employ ....'' (Emphasis added.) Public Acts 2001, No. 01-28, § 1. The legislative history is silent on the reason for this change, but we reasonably may assume that it was made to render the language of the statute gender neutral, and not to change the scope of the statute. In light of this fact, it appears that the legislature intended the term ''his'' in the prior version of the statute to mean ''person's or employer's.'' Accordingly, we conclude that the phrase ''with three or more persons in his employ'' in § 46a-51 (10) was intended to modify both ''person'' and ''employer'' and, consequently, that § 46a-60 (a) (1) does not impose liability on individual employees.
In support of our conclusion, we note that when the legislature has intended for the provisions of the Fair Employment Practices Act to apply to persons other than employers, it has made its intention clear. For example, in § 46a-60 (a) (4), (5) and (6), by contrast to § 46a-60 (a) (1), the legislature specifically referred to persons as well as to employers.
The weight of federal authority further bolsters our conclusion that individuals who are not employers may not be held liable under § 46a-60 (a) (1). This court previously has recognized that in construing the Fair Employment Practices Act ''we are properly guided by the case law surrounding federal fair employment legislation . . . .'' (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bridgeport Hospital v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 232 Conn. 91, 108, 653 A.2d 782 (1995). The majority of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals that have considered the issue, including the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, have concluded that 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (b), which defines ''employer'' as ''a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees . . . and any agent of such a person,'' does not provide for individual liability. See Dici v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 91 F.3d 542, 552 (3d Cir. 1996); Haynes v. Williams, 88 F.3d 898, 901 (10th Cir. 1996); Williams v. Banning, 72 F.3d 552, 555 (7th Cir. 1995); Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313 (2d Cir. 1995); Gary v. Long, 59 F.3d 1391, 1399 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Gary v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 516 U.S. 1011, 116 S. Ct. 569, 133 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1995); Grant v. Lone Star Co., 21 F.3d 649, 652-53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1015, 115 S. Ct. 574, 130 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1994); Miller v. Maxwell's International, Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied sub nom. Miller v. LaRosa, 510 U.S. 1109, 114 S. Ct. 1049, 127 L. Ed
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|