Connecticut House Bill HB05516

Connecticut 2018 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/18
• Refer: 3/12/18
• Report Pass: 4/4/18
• Refer: 4/13/18
• Report Pass: 4/19/18

Caption

An Act Concerning The Responsibilities And Funding Of The Commission On Human Rights.

Impact

The proposed changes significantly alter the operational dynamics of the Commission on Human Rights. By permitting commission legal counsel to intervene and directly initiate civil actions, this bill empowers the commission while streamlining processes that previously necessitated prolonged administrative hearings. The implications extend to state laws concerning discrimination, as it fosters a more proactive stance against discriminatory practices, potentially increasing the volume and efficiency of cases adjudicated in the Superior Court.

Summary

House Bill 05516 aims to enhance the responsibilities and funding of the Commission on Human Rights in Connecticut. The bill allows the commission's legal counsel to intervene in civil or human rights-related suits, playing a critical role in representing the state's interests and enabling broader access to justice for individuals facing discrimination. It introduces mechanisms for civil actions to be initiated by the commission's legal counsel, thus allowing for a more direct approach to disputes without mandating prior administrative hearings if deemed in the public interest.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding the passage of HB 05516 was generally positive among proponents who viewed it as a necessary reform to strengthen human rights protections in the state. Supporters argued that the bill would facilitate quicker resolutions for individuals suffering from discrimination, thus enhancing the state’s commitment to human rights. Conversely, there were concerns regarding the allocation of funding and resources, with some opponents questioning the practicality of increased civil actions and the potential for court backlogs.

Contention

Notable points of contention revolved around the balance between the commission's expanded authority versus potential implications for the judicial system’s workload. Critics of the bill raised concerns regarding overreach and the adequacy of funding to support the commission's enhanced role. The language in the bill regarding the commission's ability to bypass traditional administrative hearings in favor of civil action drew particular scrutiny, as it may lead to disputes over jurisdiction and the prioritization of cases.