State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, Office of Public Hearings

Syllabus

The complainant, M, an attorney who sought reinstatement to the Connecticut bar, filed a complaint with the defendant administrative agency, the Com- mission on Human Rights and Opportunities, alleging that the plaintiff, the Connecticut Judicial Branch, which administers the attorney discipline and licensing process, had discriminated or retaliated against her in the proceedings involving her reinstatement. The commission's human rights referee denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss M's complaint, and, pursuant to statute (§§ 4-183 and 46a-94a (a)), the plaintiff filed in the trial court an interlocutory administrative appeal from that ruling, asserting, inter alia, that the separation of powers doctrine afforded the plaintiff immunity from suit. The trial court rendered judgment sustaining the plaintiff's adminis- trative appeal and remanded the case to the commission with direction to dismiss M's complaint, reasoning that the commission's assertion of jurisdic- tion over the plaintiff's decisions regarding M's reinstatement violated the separation of powers doctrine because it was within the exclusive authority of the Judicial Branch to regulate attorneys and to admit attorneys to the practice of law. Thereafter, the commission appealed from the trial court's judgment sustaining the plaintiff's administrative appeal, claiming that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's interlocu- tory administrative appeal and that the court incorrectly concluded that the separation of powers doctrine barred the commission from exercising jurisdiction over M's complaint. Held: The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's interlocu- tory administrative appeal under §§ 4-183 (b) and 46a-94a (a). Section 4-183 (b) permits an interlocutory appeal from an agency ruling only if, among other things, postponement of the appeal would result in an inadequate remedy, and this court has previously held that, under § 4-183 (b), a colo