Contact the experienced employment law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com. 

In the case of State v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, the State of Connecticut and the state teachers' retirement board, sought review of a decision of the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), which awarded a teacher an increase in future pension benefits and determined that the state of Connecticut had engaged in a discriminatory practice by paying smaller pension benefits to male early retirees than to female early retirees.

The teacher received smaller pension payments from the state than similarly situated female early retirees. The CHRO awarded the male teacher an increase in his future pension benefits and the trial court affirmed its decision regarding the teacher. The court held that the trial court did not err in ruling in favor of the teacher, but found error with respect to the amount of future retirement benefit increase to which the teacher was entitled. The court held that the teacher had complied with Connecticut law because each pension payment constituted a continuing violation. The court held that discrete incidents occurring during a continuum of discriminatory employment practices could constitute fresh violations of state law. The court held that state law authorized the CHRO to require the state board to take affirmative action to put the teacher in an equal position with similarly situated persons and that the remedy could include retroactive damages. The court held that the CHRO could not fashion a remedy for others outside of the individual complaint because it did not initiate its own separate complaint on their behalf.

The court affirmed the trial court's decision except for the amount of future retirement benefit that the teacher should have received and remanded to the trial court with directions to correct the judgment in that respect. The teacher was only entitled to the difference between the amount received and the amount he would have received if his benefits had been calculated according to the unisex actuarial table.

If you feel you have been mistreated by your employer or in your place of employment and would like to explore your employment law options, contact the experienced employment law attorneys today at 203-221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com. We have the experience and knowledge you need at this critical juncture. We serve clients in both New York and Connecticut including New Canaan, Bridgeport, White Plains, and Darien.

Source: State v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 211 Conn. 464, 559 A.2d 1120, 1989 Conn. LEXIS 165, 11 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2151, 51 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39,431 (Conn. 1989)