Search form

New Procedures at Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities

By James F. Shea
  • October 5, 2015

For the second time in five years, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) will implement significant changes to its procedures for processing discrimination complaints, under Public Acts 15-249 and 15-5. These changes, including the availability of quick dispute resolution, take effect October 1, 2015.

Pre-Answer Conciliation

Employers now have the ability to engage in Pre-Answer Conciliation. This procedure tracks existing practice at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, allowing for early mediation of complaints, thus giving employers an opportunity to seek an early resolution of charges and save the time and expense of preparing an answer. An employer can request Pre-Answer Conciliation within 10 days of receiving a complaint. The CHRO then has 30 days to hold the conciliation conference. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the employer has the normal 30 days, or 45 days with an extension, to respond to the complaint. This change is significant in that it provides the parties an opportunity to resolve a matter before positions may have become hardened by time-consuming and costly administrative proceedings and litigation.

Merit Assessment Review

Another significant change is the elimination or alteration of the so-called Merit Assessment Review, now recast as a “Case Assessment Review.” This is more than a mere name change. For instance, the new rules shorten the timeframe within which the CHRO must conduct the Case Assessment Review from 90 days to 60 days from the date of the employer’s answer. The shorter deadline may move cases along more quickly, but may reduce the effectiveness of the CHRO’s pre-investigation screening process also, resulting in even more cases being retained for investigation. The new rules also affect cases that are dismissed through Case Assessment Review. The CHRO is required to issue a Release of Jurisdiction automatically for these cases. Previously, the complainant had to make a request. How these changes may affect the disposition of complaints will have to await a retrospective look after the CHRO has some experience under its belt.

Mandatory Mediation

Other changes affect the CHRO’s Mandatory Mediation process. Parties who hold a Pre-Answer Conciliation conference are not obligated to engage in mediation prior to a Commission investigation, although they are free to do so if they wish. Significantly, the CHRO representative who conducts the mediation can no longer be assigned to investigate the complaint. This change was intended to separate the mediation and investigation functions of the CHRO case handling process and to address concerns over having the same individual oversee both the mediation and the investigation of a complaint.


The following minor changes also went into effect:

  • The CHRO now has 15 days (instead of 20) after the complaint is filed to provide an employer with a copy of the complaint and notice of procedural rights.
  • A complaint sent by first class mail is considered received by the employer two days after it was mailed, unless the employer can prove otherwise.
  • The parties or the CHRO can request Early Legal Intervention at any time after the mandatory mediation conference.
  • If Early Legal Intervention is requested, CHRO legal counsel, instead of the Executive Director or his or her designee, will determine whether cases should proceed or be released from CHRO jurisdiction. This determination must be made no later than 90 days after the date of the request for Early Legal Intervention.
  • Assignment of the complaint to an investigator for fact finding must be made no later than 15 days after a failed Mediation Conference or an Early Legal Intervention decision to investigate a complaint, rather than 15 days after the Mediation Conference only.
  • The Mediation Conference cannot be held on the same date as the fact finding conference.
  • Parties no longer have the option of requesting additional mediation conferences if the first one failed to resolve the complaint.
  • CHRO legal counsel, instead of the Executive Director or the Executive Director’s designee, has the authority to grant or reject a complainant’s request for reconsideration. The timeframe within which to do this remains the same, no later than 90 days.
  • When investigating complaints, CHRO legal counsel, instead of the “Commission,” can issue subpoenas requiring production of records and other documents or compelling attendance of witnesses.
  • Employers can apply to the Executive Director to vacate a default ordered against them. The Executive Director can decide whether to vacate the default.


Overall, while several of these changes were implemented to codify what had been practice at a number of CHRO regional offices, the more significant changes are designed to track current procedures at the EEOC and allow for more efficiency and better case management at the CHRO. Time will tell whether these changes are effective in meeting these objectives.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

December 6, 2017

Bill Would Revise New Jersey Law Against Discrimination to Limit Employment Agreements

December 6, 2017

A bill in the New Jersey State Senate would effectively prohibit jury waivers, arbitration clauses, and non-disclosure provisions related to claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1, et seq. (LAD). S-3581, introduced in the Senate on December 4, 2017, declares, in no uncertain terms, that provisions in... Read More

October 3, 2017

Supreme Court Hears Argument on Validity of Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements

October 3, 2017

The United States Supreme Court heard a one-hour consolidated oral argument in three arbitration cases involving the intersection of the National Labor Relations Act and the Federal Arbitration Act on October 2, 2017. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285; National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, No. 16-307; Ernst & Young... Read More

July 19, 2017

U.S. Supreme Court Round Up – 2016-2017

July 19, 2017

The U.S. Supreme Court term that ended June 2017 included a number of decisions important to workplace law, as well as the confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch. Although functioning with only eight justices for most of the 2016-2017 term, the Court managed to achieve a strong consensus in each of its employment-related rulings.... Read More