The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities is back in the headlines but for reasons it has seen before. The Connecticut Auditors of Public Accounts released their latest audit of the CHRO last week, covering fiscal years 2023 and 2024. I wish I could tell you it was a clean bill of health. It was not. The audit contains seven findings, five of which are repeats from prior audits. And for employers who have cases pending at the agency — or who may find themselves there soon — several of these findings have direct and practical implications.

The Case Processing Delays Are Real — and Documented

For employers, Finding 5 is the headline though not a surprise to practitioners like me. The auditors reviewed 20 discrimination cases filed during the audit period and found pervasive noncompliance with the statutory deadlines that govern how the CHRO processes complaints.

The numbers are striking. The CHRO is required by statute to serve the respondent with a copy of the complaint within 15 days of filing. In 19 of the 20 cases reviewed, that deadline was missed — by anywhere from 2 to 167 days late, with a median of 26 days. Case assessment reviews, which must be conducted within 60 days of the respondent’s answer, were late in 13 cases — by up to 126 days. Investigators were assigned late in 10 cases, and the one Early Legal Intervention decision reviewed was 94 days past the statutory deadline.

But the most significant delay is in the final cause determination. In 15 of the cases reviewed, the investigator did not make a reasonable cause or no reasonable cause finding within the statutory deadline. The delays ranged from 14 to 399 days late, with a median of 150 days. That’s five months past the deadline — on the median case. The worst case was over a year late.

Long-time readers may recall that back in 2011, a prior audit found that 56 percent of cases exceeded the statutory maximum of 370 days for a final determination. The agency’s response then? The same as now: not enough staff.

Indeed, in its response to this audit, the CHRO flatly disagreed with the finding and stated that it “has been historically and chronically understaffed and under-resourced.” The agency went on: “There are not enough hours in the day or days of the week to meet all statutory and regulatory time frames because the volume of the work exceeds our available resources.”

I don’t doubt that the staffing challenges are real. I wrote back in 2016 about attending a CHRO informational session where the agency’s own principal attorney noted that staffing levels had dropped to just 66 people — down nearly 50 percent from years ago. But for employers sitting on the other side of a complaint, the reason for the delay matters less than the delay itself.

The Technology Problem Persists

Finding 4 will also sound familiar. The auditors found that the CHRO’s complaint tracking system still “did not effectively, efficiently, and reliably support management in its mission due to design limitations, inadequate maintenance, and unreliable information.” And the agency “has not added significant functionality to its complaint tracking system since the last audit.”

The CHRO agreed with the finding and acknowledged that “our current systems are outdated and inefficient, often requiring excessive staff time to manage the high volume of paper-based processes.”

The agency still operates in what the auditors describe as “a paper-oriented environment with a focus on individual case management rather than process management” and “lacks staff with information technology expertise.” DAS has committed to collaborating with the CHRO on modernization and preparing an IT Capital Investment request “once a viable solution is identified.” In the meantime, the CHRO processes an average of over 2,000 new discrimination cases a year — some of which can take years.

What This Means for Employers

So what should employers take away from all of this? A few things.

First, expect delays — and plan for them. The audit confirms what practitioners have known for years: the CHRO’s statutory deadlines are aspirational, not actual. If you have a case pending at the agency, build the expected delay into your planning. When deadlines are not really deadlines, it can be frustrating for employers — but until there are structural changes and additional resources, don’t expect things to change.

Second, use the delay strategically. While the CHRO processes your case, witnesses leave, memories fade, and documents become harder to locate. Employers should use the time to preserve evidence, lock in witness accounts, and prepare their defense as if the case were headed to court — because it very well might be. Remember that employees can request a release of jurisdiction after a period of time. Extended CHRO processing times can mean cases linger for years before a trial date.

And finally, keep your own house in order. The irony of the CHRO audit — an agency tasked with enforcing anti-discrimination laws struggling with its own compliance obligations — is not lost on anyone who has been watching the agency over the years. But for employers, the lesson is straightforward: if the agency responsible for investigating your workplace practices can’t meet its own statutory deadlines, maintain its own records, or manage its own technology, you need to make sure that you can. Document your employment decisions. Maintain your records. Respond to complaints promptly. Because if a case does get investigated — even if it takes longer than it should — the quality of your documentation will matter far more than the speed of the agency’s process.

The Bottom Line

The themes of this audit — understaffing, outdated technology, missed deadlines, repeated findings — are not new. What’s new is that we can now see just how far the delays extend and how persistent the operational challenges remain. The CHRO receives over 2,000 complaints a year, roughly 80 percent of which relate to employment. It is, for better or worse, the front door to discrimination litigation in Connecticut.

Employers who find themselves on the other side of a CHRO complaint should approach the process with clear eyes: understand the delays, prepare thoroughly, and don’t assume that the agency’s struggles will work in your favor. A slow investigation is still an investigation, and the case on the other end of it will eventually require your full attention.