Connecticut Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Daniel Schwartz : Stamford, Hartford New Haven, CT

Updated 6/25 to add additional information. 

It's been several months since I last updated readers on the ups and downs of the CHRO, the state agency responsible for overseeing discrimination complaints in Connecticut.  And for the last several months longtime employee Raymond Pech filled in as Executive Director without getting the sorts of headlines that have plagued some of his predecessors.

A review of the minutes of the CHRO's May meeting reveals that a search for an full-time executive director was continuing in light of Pech's impending retirement. The CHRO has thus appointed Robert Brothers, Jr. as the new Acting Executive Director, effective June 1, 2008.   Mr. Brothers continues to serve as Managing Attorney for the CHRO as well, as this organization chart reveals.

Notably, the vote on the appointment of Mr. Brothers was not unanimous, according to the meeting minutes.  Mr. Brothers was appointed 4-1, with one abstention.  The minutes of the meeting note: 

The Chair stated that while he may not be called upon to vote on the motion, he believes Mr. Brothers is a dedicated, hardworking and bright individual who is also dedicated to the agency and its mission and the agency will be in good hands for the period of time he will be serving as Acting Executive Director. There was no further discussion on the motion. The motion carried with Commissioners Conaway, Cruz, Griffin and Mambruno voting in favor of themotion. Commissioner Lobon opposed the motion and Commissioner Mengual abstained.

Commissioner Mengual explained that she has chosen to abstain on the motion because her recommendation was to appoint an acting director who is from outside of the agency. She stated she feels someone with strong organizational expertise and experience as an executive director would be the ideal appointment for this acting director position. She further clarified that her abstention is no reflection of her opinion of Mr. Brothers’ capabilities, but rather, her concern about the growing demand within the legal department and her already expressed interests about having a fresh, outside perspective brought in during this interim period, which would be very productive. Chairperson Norton thanked Mr. Brothers in advance for the good services the Commission expects and hopes for.

In the interim, for employers this likely means that there probably won't be any big changes in the way the CHRO handles matters.  Without a permanent Executive Director (and with the Assistant Director position still vacant), I believe the expectations are that Attorney Brothers will hold the fort until the "calvary" comes. Of course, he may have different plans.

On a related note, late last year there was word of an advisory group that had been formed to look at the workings of the CHRO.  It appears that a report is expected from that group this summer, according to the minutes:

Chairperson Norton reported he spoke to some individuals in the Governor’s Office regarding the Advisory Group on CHRO, as well as Jeffrey Beckham, Undersecretary at the Office of the Policy Management, who now serves as Chair of the Advisory Group. Although there is not a lot to report at this point in time, they are looking at diversity issues in state agencies and they are inviting all of the Commissioners to come and speak to them at their next meeting scheduled for May 19. They hope to have a report to the Governor some time this summer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Last week, I posted about a working group that Governor Rell had formed to review the workings of the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO).

Today, Hartford Courant columnist Stan Simpson has an interesting column on the same subject.  It's worth a read.  It discussed the ongoing backlog of complaint and the issues that the agency has had with its leadership. 

He also quotes from the current Connecticut NAACP head who laments the fact that the CHRO's top positions are held by white males. 

Now, there's grumbling that the current key leaders — chairman, executive director, legal director, field operations and chief human rights referee — are all white males. The preferred candidate for the deputy director's job also appears to be a white male.

"It's the civil rights community that brought that whole agency into fruition," said Scot X. Esdaile, president of the state NAACP, which supports a thorough review of the agency. "For the [upper leadership] ranks to turn all white is criminal."

Executive Director Raymond Peck points out that about 40 percent of the 100 staffers are non-white, and that about half of the middle managers, including regional directors, are people of color.

"Would it be better if we looked more diverse at the very top? Yes," Peck said. "We want to be as diverse as we can at all levels."

However, credit Simpson with pointing out that, although the CHRO may have been built from the civil rights era, the CHRO's functions of investigating discrimination go far beyond race discrimination today.   Indeed, I pointed out in October that the Annual Report for the CHRO shows decreases in the numbers of employment law claims over the last five years, while some claims (such as harassment) have increased.

According to the report of the types of claims filed in 2006-2007, the statistics show that race discrimiantion employment claims running about equal with gender discrimination claims and not far ahead of age and disability discrimination claims.  Here are some partial statistics on the numbers of claims being filed.

Simpson concludes that the best solution may be to "tear it down — [and] rebuild CHRO into an independent, apolitical watchdog that ferrets out discrimination of all kinds and promotes inclusion in state hiring."  Given the numerous attempts to fix the CHRO over the years, you can't blame him for suggesting that the agency work from a clean slate.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

In Connecticut, it's well known that the state agency responsible for investigating complaints, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) has been the subject  of lots of discussion and criticism for over a decade, dating back to the years under Executive Director Louis Martin.

Recently, a new series of criticisms have been heard about the agency, and the agency appears to be having difficulty keeping up with the caseload.  As such, Governor Jodi Rell has quietly formed a working group to review the agency and its ability to carry out its stated goals.

A recent article by the Waterbury Republican-American picks up the story from here:

The review is expected to take several months, said Christopher Cooper, the governor's chief spokesman. He said the assessment grew out of contacts between the state NAACP and the governor's office this summer.

There are well-documented problems at the human rights commission, including a backlog of complaints, high caseloads for investigators, and allegations of discrimination within the agency itself. Additionally, three executive directors have left under questionable circumstances in the last 10 years.

Cooper said the commission's troubles entered into Rell's decision to look into its possible restructuring....

The governor's working group initially met last month; its second meeting is scheduled for Dec. 13.

Ann Noble, the governor's deputy counsel, is heading the working group. It also includes representatives from the Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, the NAACP, the state's African-American Affairs Commission, Latino, Puerto Rican Affairs Commission and Commission on Aging, and the University of Connecticut's Asian American Cultural Center.

In the article, I was asked to comment on the issues facing the CHRO.  I'll let you read the article (in part, to give the intrepid reporter, Paul Hughes, credit for the article) but suffice to say that I indicated that more needs to be done to speed up the resolution of cases.  Indeed, cases are falling further and further behind, while the caseloads of the investigators increase.

This is an issue that affect both the employee and the employer.  Neither side can be happy with the delays that are plaguing the agency right now.  It increases the cost of litigation to both sides -- which can only serve to make settlement more difficult down the road.

For an agency that has had its share of difficulties over the years, a working group to review it is certainly a welcome addition.   There will be no shortage of issues for the group to address.  Hopefully, the group will reach out to practitioners from both sides of the cases to provide the group with additional feedback and suggestions. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)