Nestor v. Pratt & Whitney - 466 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006)

Rule:

Connecticut law provides that, after a Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CCHRO) action has been pending for 210 days, the CCHRO must grant a plaintiff's request for release of jurisdiction. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46a-100, 46a-101. Similarly, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq., provides that a discrimination plaintiff who has a pending state agency action has the right, as a matter of law, to receive a right-to-sue letter from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and to initiate a federal or state court action 240 days after the state agency action was filed. 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

Facts:

Plaintiff-Appellant Gale Nestor ("Nestor") filed a complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ("CCHRO") against her former employer, United Technologies Corporation, Pratt & Whitney Division ("Pratt"), alleging that her employment had been terminated by reason of her sex. She prevailed in the CCHRO, prevailed as well on the appeals taken by Pratt in the Connecticut state courts, and collected damages of back pay and interest. She later filed the present action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("Title VII"), seeking damages that were unavailable in the CCHRO proceedings: attorney's fees, compensatory damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages. Pratt successfully moved for summary judgment on the ground that Nestor's action is barred by Connecticut's doctrine of res judicata. Nestor challenged the decision.

Issue:

Could a Title VII plaintiff, who prevailed on her discrimination claims before a state administrative agency, subsequently file suit in a federal court to seek relief unavailable in the state proceedings?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court noted in the present case, the employee did not simply seek to recover for expenses but also sought to adjudicate substantive issues regarding the employer's discriminatory conduct and its consequences. Evidently, the relief the employee sought under Title VII was unavailable in the state administrative proceedings and, as such, she could have filed her federal action at any time after the 210-day deferral period. The court averred that Connecticut set up the CCHRO as a faster and less expensive alternative to litigation in the trial courts; the appellate court doubted that Connecticut would have applied res judicata in a way that would limit the relief available to claimants who used the CCHRO, and thereby furnished an incentive to litigate in court. Accordingly, the judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings.