SC21026 - Stamford v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, Office of Public Hearings ("This public interest appeal under General Statutes § 52-265a requires us to address the relationship between the appeal provisions contained in two related statutory schemes, namely, the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq., and the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Statutes § 4-166 et seq., as they apply to appeals to the Superior Court from decisions made by a human rights referee (referee) of the defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO). Pursuant to the CFEPA, only 'a final order of a presiding officer' is appealable 'in accordance with [§] 4-183 [of the UAPA].' General Statutes § 46a-94a (a). The UAPA provides that an appeal to the Superior Court may be taken from either an agency's 'final decision'; General Statutes § 4-183 (a); or 'a preliminary, procedural or intermediate agency action or ruling . . . if (1) it appears likely that the person will otherwise qualify . . . to appeal from the final agency action or ruling and (2) postponement of the appeal would result in an inadequate remedy.' General Statutes § 4-183 (b). The primary issue in this appeal is whether a 'final order' under the CFEPA is limited to a 'final decision,' as defined by the UAPA, or whether it also includes an appealable 'preliminary, procedural or intermediate agency action or ruling' under § 4-183 (b). We conclude that the term 'final order' encompasses both final decisions under § 4-183 (a) and appealable interlocutory orders under § 4-183 (b). The order at issue in this case, however, was neither an appealable final decision nor an appealable interlocutory order. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's decision and remand with direction to render judgment granting the defendants' motions to dismiss the city's administrative appeal.")