Andrea Wilson v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On February 19, 2010, the plaintiff, Andrea Wilson, filed a petition for an administrative appeal in which she alleges that the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) improperly dismissed her complaint.   On August 10, 2010, the defendant filed a motion for extension to time to respond, which the court granted.   On September 14, 2010, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss accompanied by a memorandum in support.   The defendant moves to dismiss the plaintiff's petition on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff because she has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.   On December 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed an objection to the motion, which is accompanied by a memorandum of law.

“A motion to dismiss ․ properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Bacon Construction Co. v. Dept. of Public Works, 294 Conn. 695, 706, 987 A.2d 348 (2010).  “It is well established that, in determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Wilcox v. Webster Ins. Co., 294 Conn. 206, 214, 982 A.2d 1053 (2009).

In its memorandum of law, the defendant argues that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies because her claims relate to a matter pending before the CHRO. The plaintiff counters that she is not required to exhaust her administrative remedies because the CHRO is incapable of providing her with an adequate remedy.

“Under [the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine], a trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an action that seeks a remedy that could be provided through an administrative proceeding, unless and until that remedy has been sought in the administrative forum ․ In the absence of exhaustion of that remedy, the action must be dismissed.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Garcia v. Hartford, 292 Conn. 334, 339, 972 A.2d 706 (2009).   The Connecticut Supreme Court, however, has “recognized an exception to the exhaustion requirement where recourse to the administrative process is futile or provides an inadequate remedy ․ An administrative remedy is futile or inadequate if the agency lacks authority to grant the requested relief.”   (Citations omitted.)  Payne v. Fairfield Hills Hospital, 215 Conn. 675, 680 n.3, 578 A.2d 1025 (1990).

The court has considered the arguments of the plaintiff and the defendant and finds that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and that the exception to the exhaustion requirement does not apply.   After all, the CHRO could rule in favor of the plaintiff, providing her with complete relief.   If the plaintiff is aggrieved after the CHRO renders a final decision, she may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 4–183(a).   Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby granted.

OWENS, J.T.R.

Owens, Howard T., J.T.R.