Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Litchfield Housing Auth.

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

Letitia Kilby filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, claiming unlawful housing discrimination by Defendants, the town housing authority and a property management company. The Commission found reasonable cause to believe that unlawful discrimination occurred. The trial court then granted Defendants' request to file a civil action in the trial court. Kilby moved to intervene, claiming both intervention as of right and permissive intervention. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed, concluding that although the statute at issue, Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-83(d)(2), did not expressly grant Kilby a right of intervention, it impliedly granted Kilby a right of intervention. The Supreme Court granted Defendants' petition for certification to appeal, but while the case was pending, the legislature enacted Conn. Pub. Acts 11-237, which amended the text of section 46a-83 to allow a complainant to intervene as of right in a housing discrimination action brought by the commission on behalf of the complainant. The Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the significance of Defendants' appeal was substantially undermined by Conn. Pub. Acts 11-237, and, thus, certification was improvidently granted.

Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE TOWN OF LITCHFIELD ET AL. (SC 18487) Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, McLachlan, Eveleigh and Harper, Js. Argued May 19 officially released August 23, 2011 Joshua A. Hawks-Ladds, for the appellants (defendants). Kevin J. Brophy, with whom was David S. Stowe, for the appellee (prospective intervenor Letitia Kilby). Michelle Dumas Keuler, with whom, on the brief, was Charles Krich, for the appellee (plaintiff). Michelle H. Seagull filed a brief for the Connecticut Fair Housing Center et al. as amici curiae. Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendants, the housing authority of the town of Litchfield and D & H Property Management, LLC, appeal, on the granting of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court s denial of the motion of the complainant, Letitia Kilby, to intervene in an action brought by the plaintiff, the commission on human rights and opportunities (commission), on behalf of the complainant. On appeal, the defendants claim that the Appellate Court improperly interpreted General Statutes § 46a-83 (d) (2) to permit the complainant to intervene. We conclude that we improvidently granted certification and dismiss the appeal. The Appellate Court summarized the relevant factual and procedural history as follows. The complainant filed an administrative complaint with the commission against the defendants, claiming unlawful [housing] discrimination . . . . After settlement discussions failed, the commission completed its investigation and found reasonable cause to believe that unlawful discrimination had occurred. The defendants requested, pursuant to § 46a-83 (d) (2), that the commission file [a] civil action in the trial court, and the commission complied. The complainant moved to intervene, claiming both intervention as of right and permissive intervention. The [trial] court denied the complainant s motion. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Housing Authority, 117 Conn. App. 30, 32 33, 978 A.2d 136 (2009). The complainant appealed from the decision of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and the Appellate Court reversed. Id., 32, 53. The Appellate Court concluded that, although the statute at issue, § 46a-83 (d) (2), did not expressly grant a right of intervention to the complainant, the statute impliedly granted the complainant a statutory right to intervene. See id., 46. The defendants subsequently petitioned for certification to appeal, and we granted the petition.1 Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Housing Authority, 294 Conn. 909, 982 A.2d 1081 (2009). While this case was pending, however, the legislature enacted Public Acts 2011, No. 11-237 (P.A. 11-237), which becomes effective on October 1, 2011. Public Act 11-237 has, among other things, amended the text of § 46a-83 to allow a complainant to intervene as of right in a housing discrimination action brought by the commission on behalf of the complainant. See P.A. 11-237, § 6 ( [a] complainant may intervene as a matter of right in a civil action without permission of the court or the parties ), to be codified at General Statutes (Sup. 2012) § 46a-83 (e) (2). Even though the new legislation has not yet taken effect, we conclude that the significance of the defen- dants appeal has been undermined substantially by P.A. 11-237, § 6, and, thus, the appeal should be dismissed because certification was improvidently granted. E.g., Silver v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 242 Conn. 186, 189, 699 A.2d 151 (1997); Lumber Mutual Ins. Co. v. Holmes, 239 Conn. 798, 802, 687 A.2d 162 (1997); cf. In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 358, 641 A.2d 378 (1994) (appeal dismissed when, subsequent to granting of certification, new rule of practice firmly establishe[d] the applicable policy for future cases).2 The appeal is dismissed. 1 We initially granted certification to appeal limited to the following question: Did the Appellate Court properly determine that a complainant may intervene as of right in a judicial proceeding initiated by the [commission] pursuant to . . . § 46a-83? Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Housing Authority, 294 Conn. 909, 982 A.2d 1081 (2009). The complainant subsequently moved to file a statement of alternative grounds for affirmance of the judgment of the Appellate Court and asked this court to determine, inter alia, whether she could intervene in the commission s action on the basis of the test announced in Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 60 Conn. App. 134, 140, 146 49, 758 A.2d 916 (2000), and adopted by this court in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 279 Conn. 447, 456 57, 904 A.2d 137 (2006), and we granted the motion. 2 In dismissing the appeal, we take no position on the merits of the Appellate Court s decision. See, e.g., New London v. Foss & Bourke, Inc., 276 Conn. 522, 525, 886 A.2d 1217 (2005) ( a dismissal of a certified appeal on the ground that certification was improvidently granted should not be understood as either approval or disapproval of the decision from which certification to appeal was originally granted [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.