Vorcelia Oliphant v. Connecticut Department of Transportation et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS

The plaintiff, Vorcelia Oliphant, filed her administrative appeal on November 23, 2010, and the defendant, the Connecticut Human Rights and Opportunities commission (CHRO) moved to dismiss on February 8, 2011.   The defendant, Department of Transportation (DOT) joined in the CHRO's motion to dismiss on February 17, 2011.   The plaintiff's written response to the motion to dismiss was scheduled for March 7, 2011.   Oral argument had been set previously for March 8, 2011.   At oral argument, the court granted the plaintiff until March 22, 2011 to respond to the motion to dismiss, based on the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time.   The plaintiff failed to file a response to the motion to dismiss by March 22.

The motion to dismiss is therefore subject to a ruling by the court.   The administrative appeal challenges actions by the CHRO in two of its files.   The first file is # 0410362.   In this file, the CHRO denied a motion to reconsider on July 7, 2010.   Since the plaintiff's appeal was filed in the court on November 23, 2010, an appeal from this file exceeds the forty-five day deadline to file an administrative appeal as established by § 4–183(c).  An appeal from this file of the CHRO must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.   See Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Ass'n., Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 227 Conn. 848, 633 A.2d 305 (1993).

The second file is # 0110381.   In this file, the CHRO granted reconsideration and the matter is still pending at the CHRO. This file is subject to dismissal on the ground that the plaintiff has not exhausted her administrative remedies.   See Connecticut Bank and Trust Co. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 202 Conn. 150, 520 A.2d 186 (1987).

The motion to dismiss is therefore granted and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Henry S. Cohn, Judge

Cohn, Henry S., J.