Skip to main content

Litigation

Plaintiff Employment Litigation

Scope of Representation

Employee litigation is representation of employees in claims against an employer for violations of state or federal workplace law. I represent Connecticut employees in discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination matters before the CHRO and EEOC and in Connecticut Superior Court. The work includes charge filing, responses to employer position statements, litigation, and settlement of claims under CFEPA, Title VII and related federal statutes, and common-law wrongful discharge theories.

Matters Handled

The scope of representation encompasses a focused range of legal matters within this practice area:

  • Discrimination based on a protected characteristic
  • Sexual harassment and hostile work environment
  • Retaliation for reporting illegal conduct or protected activity
  • Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

Each matter is rigorously evaluated against statutory deadlines, evidentiary burdens, and the applicable legal framework.

Proceedings & Forums

Most discrimination claims must be exhausted before the CHRO or the EEOC before suit may be filed. The administrative process includes intake, investigation, and, if unresolved, issuance of a right-to-sue authorization. Whether to file with the CHRO, the EEOC, or both depends on the claim and the remedy sought. I draft charges, respond to position statements, participate in conciliation, and file in Superior Court when exhaustion is complete.

Critical Deadline: 300 Days

A CHRO discrimination charge must be filed within 300 days of the act complained of under CGS § 46a-82(f)(2)1. The deadline is jurisdictional. Missing this deadline permanently bars your claim.

A later act may start a new period for that act; earlier acts do not remain open merely because related conduct continued.

If the matter proceeds to court, the case turns on what the employer knew, when they knew it, and what they did about it. Depositions, discovery, and summary judgment motions follow a predictable sequence.

Authorities Cited

  1. CGS § 46a-82(f)(2) ↩