SC20847 - O'Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (“This certified appeal raises the question of who qualifies as a ‘‘supervisor’’ and renders an employer vicariously liable for the creation of a hostile work environment in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (state act), General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq. The named defendant, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission), concluded in an administrative decision that the defendant employer, the Department of Labor (department), was not vicariously liable for the creation of a hostile work environment in the office where it employed the plaintiff, Tenisha O’Reggio. The decision was upheld by the trial court, and the Appellate Court affirmed that judgment. See O’Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 219 Conn. App. 1, 4–5, 20, 293 A.3d 955 (2023). We granted the plaintiff’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: ‘Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the legal standard adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421, 133 S. Ct. 2434, 186 L. Ed. 2d 565 (2013), applied to the plaintiff’s claim under the [state act] . . . that the [department] was vicariously liable for the hostile work environment allegedly created by one of the [department’s] employees?’ O’Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 346 Conn. 1029, 295 A.3d 944 (2023). Following our well established use of federal case law applying Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII), to guide our interpretation and application of the state act, we conclude that the Appellate Court’s comprehensive and well reasoned opinion correctly adopted the Vance definition of the term ‘supervisor.’ Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.”

SC20847 Dissent - O'Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities