Connecticut House Bill HB05792

Connecticut 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/25
• Refer: 1/21/25

Caption

An Act Concerning Human Rights Referees Employed By The Commission On Human Rights And Opportunities.

Impact

The bill also allows the presiding referee more autonomy in determining the locations for hearings and related conferences, thereby potentially streamlining proceedings and fostering greater efficiency in resolving cases. Moreover, it assigns the Office of the Attorney General the responsibility of representing the presiding officer should there be any appeals against final orders made by the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. This shift aims to provide a more robust legal framework for addressing appeals, which could affect future human rights adjudication processes.

Summary

House Bill 05792 proposes amendments to the statutes governing human rights referees employed by the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities in Connecticut. This bill clearly stipulates that any individual appointed as a human rights referee must be an attorney who has been admitted to practice law in Connecticut for at least ten years. Such a qualification aims to enhance the legal expertise and credibility of the referees in handling sensitive human rights cases.

Conclusion

Overall, HB05792 reflects a legislative effort to enhance the functioning and authority of Connecticut's human rights adjudication processes. By imposing stricter qualifications on referees and increasing the oversight role of the Attorney General, the bill aims to foster a more effective and credible resolution of human rights issues in the state.

Contention

A notable aspect of the bill is the change in terminology from 'human rights referee' to 'human rights magistrate.' This alteration not only reflects a shift in the title but may also signify a broader intention to elevate the status and perceived authority of these judicial figures within the human rights framework. Critiques of this bill are expected to focus on the implications of requiring a ten-year legal experience for referees, as this could limit the pool of qualified candidates and affect the Commission's ability to handle cases efficiently.