Andrea Wilson v. Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an administrative appeal brought by the plaintiff, Andrea Wilson, from a decision of the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (CHRO), dismissing her employment discrimination complaint filed against the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch.   The defendants, CHRO, Charles (sic) Brothers, Jr., Charles Krich, Donna Marie Wilkerson Brilliant, David (sic) Levine, and Chief Justice Chase Rogers, move to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.   The defendants assert that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal because, among other things, the plaintiff did not file her appeal with the court and serve a copy of the complaint on CHRO within the forty-five-day time period required by General Statutes § 4–183.

It is well-established that “an appeal of an administrative decision pursuant to § 4–183(c) must be filed with the Superior Court within forty-five days after the mailing of the hearing officer's final decision.   Failure to appeal within forty-five days deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.”   Crest Pontiac Cadillac v. Hadley, 239 Conn. 437, 443 n.9, 685 A.2d 670 (1996).   Our appellate courts have also made clear that service on the agency must also be accomplished within the 45–day period in order for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal.   See, e.g., Tolly v. Department of Income Maintenance, 225 Conn. 13, 27, 621 A.2d. 719 (1993);  Searles v. Department of Social Services, 96 Conn.App. 511, 514, 900 A.2d 598 (2006).

The undisputed facts as disclosed by the record in this case and in the affidavit attached to CHRO's motion demonstrate that the appeal was neither timely filed, nor timely served.   The CHRO, pursuant to General Statutes § 4–180, mailed the final decision to the plaintiff on June 17, 2011, thereby requiring that the plaintiff file her appeal with the court and serve CHRO on or before August 1, 2011.   The plaintiff did not file her appeal until, at the earliest, September 22, 2011, when she filed an Application for Waiver of Fees.¹ The plaintiff did not serve CHRO with the appeal until October 12, 2011.   Accordingly, her appeal was filed at least ninety-six days after the mailing of the final decision and was forty-one days late.   Service on the CHRO was 117 days late.

It is true that the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration with CHRO on or about July 15, 2011.   That motion, however, was itself untimely, because General Statutes § 4–181a(a)(1) requires that any motion for reconsideration be filed within fifteen days of the mailing of the final decision.   Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was approximately two weeks late.   Because the motion for reconsideration was not timely filed, it did not extend the forty-five time period set forth in § 4–183.

In light of the fact that the plaintiff failed to file this appeal and serve a copy of it on CHRO within forty-five days of the mailing of the agency's final decision, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal.   Accordingly, it is not necessary to reach the other issues raised in the defendants' motions to dismiss.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.   Judgment shall enter accordingly.

Hon. Eliot D. Prescott

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The plaintiff did not file the actual appeal until September 29, 2011.   Given the lateness of the appeal, it is not necessary to reach the question of whether the plaintiff tolled the appeal period on September 22, 2011, when she filed her application for waiver of fees..  FN1. The plaintiff did not file the actual appeal until September 29, 2011.   Given the lateness of the appeal, it is not necessary to reach the question of whether the plaintiff tolled the appeal period on September 22, 2011, when she filed her application for waiver of fees.

Prescott, Eliot D., J.