City of Waterbury Board of Ed. v. Chro, No. Cv 95 012 75 39 (Oct. 21, 1996)

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff board of education of the city of Waterbury appeals the decision of the defendant state commission on human rights and opportunities awarding defendant Ian McKenna damages for emotional distress and expenses incurred in attending the commission hearing. The commission based its decision on the provisions of General Statutes § 46a-58, finding that the plaintiff board had illegally discriminated against McKenna, because of his race, in the terms of his employment with the board. CT Page 8234

Subsequent to the plaintiff's appeal in this case, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Commission onHuman Rights Opportunities v. Truelove Maclean, Inc.,238 Conn. 337 (1996). In that case, the court held that §§ 46a-58 and 46a-86 (c) do not apply to complaints of employment discrimination practices that are encompassed by General Statutes § 46a-60. In the context of this case, the latter statute broadly prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of the individual's race. Section 46a-60 and its remedial companion statute, § 46a-86 (b), the court held, provide the exclusive statutory framework for the commission's action on employment discrimination complaints.

Sections 46a-60 and 46a-86 (b) do not authorize the award of damages for emotional distress or travel expenses, upon a finding of discrimination in employment.Bridgeport Hospital v. Commission on Human Rights andOpportunities, 232 Conn. 91 (1995).

Based on the authorities cited above, the court finds that the commission's decision in this case was contrary to law and may not be affirmed.

The plaintiff's appeal is affirmed.

MALONEY, J.

DECISION ON OBJECTION TO BILL OF COSTS 1. Investigation Costs: Must be documented with proof that each plaintiff has paid only a non-duplicated share of the bill, to a maximum of $200 each.

2. These are separate consolidated cases. Each plaintiff (husband and wife as a unit) are entitled to $75.00 Plus $50.00

3. Bills for original photographs, not enlargements, must be produced. Only photographs actually used CT Page 8235 at trial are allowed. Plaintiffs cannot seek duplicate payments for the same photograph used. One total payment for each photograph admitted at trial.

4. Medical records costs not allowed. For court and clerk's fees for copies of records see General Statutes § 52-259.

5. Expert fees for economists not allowed. Experts' fees limited to persons designated in General Statutes § 52-260 (f), (g).

6. Sheriff fees for service of subpoenas must be documented. See General Statutes § 257(b)(7) and § 52-261.

7. Trial exhibits: Reasonable Costs, to be documented, are allowable for original "maps, plans, mechanical drawings" actually submitted as exhibits at trial. Costs for enlargements of basic documents (photographs, maps, etc.) not allowed.

F. Paul Sullivan, J.