Professional Documents
Culture Documents
February 1L 2010
Mustafa Salahuddin
56 Stoher Place
Bridgeport, CT. 05606
Cert #9 1-7 1 08-21 33-3937-3479-3670
Pursuant to CONN. GEN. STAT. $ 46a-83(b), the Commission on Human Rights and
Op,podunities iCHRO) is required to conduci a Merit Assessment Review (MAR) c,f all
complaints (except housing). The purpose of the MAR review is to determine whether
the ccnnplaint should be retsined for a full investigaticn or disrnissed.
Determination of the MAR process requires that the executive directorldesignee review:
. The complaint
. Respondent's answers to the complaint
. Respondent's answers to the cornmission's request for information, if any
o Complainant's comments, if any, and
Additional information from the respondent shall not be considered unless the
complainant has had fifteen (15) days to review and respond to such information.
See Section 46a-5449a{a) of the REGULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT STATE
AGENCTES{2002}.
The CHRO will construe ihe complaint liberally and in a light most favorable to the
cornplainant. Arnodio v. Cunningha.$, f 82 Conn, 80 (1980). The CHF.O shall retaln
complaints for a full investigation unless one or more of the standards set forth in
CONN. GEI'J. STAT. $ 46a-S3(b) has been satisfied, specifically;
MERIT ASSESSMENT STANDARD I- Does the complaint fail to state a claim for
relief?
The courts have held that a complaint may be dismissed for fa,liure to staie a claim upon
which relief can be granted 'only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any
set of facts ihai could be proved consistent with the allegations.' Hishon v. Kins &
$pald-tn9,467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984).
1. Does the complaint claim a protacted class basis for the treatment in question?
2. Dces the complaint claim an injury?
3. Does ihe complaint claim an injury based upon the complainant's class basis?
4. Was the complaint filed in a timely manner?
I fne cor.aplaint fails to state a clairn for relief and should be dismissed because:
Tfie courts have held that a complaint is frivolous when ii lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke at Al. v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). 'A pleading is frivolous
when it is clearly insufficient on iis face, and does not controvert the material points of
the opposite pleadings, and is presumably imposed fgr the purpose of detay or to
embarrass the opponent." Slack's Law Dictionarv 601 (5'' Ed- 1979).
1. Does the complaint allege a viabte claim in law or fact, which would entitle the
complainant to relieff
MLAR 401-D
A^., {.Il?/d,n4<
r\s Y. r r/4+/ avuJ
MERIT ASSESSMENT STANDARD 3 - ls the respondent exempt frorn the
provisions of Chapter 814c of the Connecticut General $tatutes?
Tlre CHRO has jurisdiction over the complaint unless the evidence in the file indicates
that the respondent is exempt (additional is$ues of jurisdiction are addressed under the
other standards of review.) A respondent may be exempt if anv of the follo.Iving apptv,
I Respondent is exempt from the CHRO's jurisdiction and the complaint should be
dismissed because:
The complainant alleged that he was subject to retaliatlon due to his having
previously oppOsed discriminatory conduct and his race, color and religion were
contributing factors in the respondent's treatment of him. He asserted that since
the start of nis employmenl by the respondent, he has been subject to an ongoing
inAR 401-D
Pcr, 'i iil2..r?Cil{
pattern of retaliation, with the last incident being one wherein he was subjected to
an internal affairs investigation.
The responderrt denied the allegations of discrimination and admitted that the
complainant was directed to participate in an intemal investigation arising from his
arrest by the Connecticut $tate Police (CSP) and subsequent prosecution within
the Connecticut $uperior Court. The charges involved (53a-125b) have been
pending since July 2008, during which time the complainant has been on a paid
administrative leave. Due to the prior complaints and allegations of retaliation
and biae advanced by ihe compiainant, in May 2009, the respondent souglrt the
services of a 3rd party, CSP, to conduct the internal investigation into the
complainant's criminaf conduct and the complainant was ordered to fully
cooperate with their invastigation. As of the date of the complaint, the CSP
investigative repod had not been issued.
The complainant did not submit any rebuital comment$, nor did he identify any
witnesses who could provide substantive informationlevidence sufficient to
compromise the respondent's detailed and documented answers. .While the
evidentiary burden on the complainant during a merit assessment review is not as
stringent as at a public hearing, even at this stage the complainant must produce
some evidence supporting his prirna facie case and suggesting thai the
respondent's proffered reason is merely a pretext for discrimination." (Crim v.
Commission on Hurnan Rights & Opportunities, Wallace v. Commission on
Human Rights & Opportunities.)
MAR 401.D
D^., { { lt2 lnnn tr
such there is no reasanable basis for believing that further investigation would
resuli in a cause finding.
PISPOSITION:
X Notice is hereby given that pursuant to CONN. GEN. STAT g 46a-83{b}, the
cornmission has disrnissed your cornplaint follcwing its Fderit Asseasrnent Review
process because:
You may apply for reconsideration, requesting that the CHRO reconsider its decision
dismissing the complaint, as provided in CONN. GEN. $TAT. $ 46a-83(e), Th.e
reconsidPration request ryq$i_be,i3._yyritin[and filed withh.titteen f15] calendar
days fr$$-the-dele o[thif; lsttgtnlthg regional office li$]qd,ir.r the l?tteJl]eAd. lt is
the complainant's responsibility to file a timely request- p_ftjineJylegltegts_*U{il,tn
considered. The request should state the specific grounds upon which the application
is based. The ex"ecutive dlrector may reconsider the dismlssal ol a complaint if:
A copy of your request for reconsideration musi be mailed to the respondent and
respondent's attorney, if any, at the address lislad at the bottorr,t of thiq-lgttgt. You
should certify that you have done so in your request for reconsideration filed with the
commission.
MAR 401-D
P+r. -41l??l?fllt6
lf you do not request reconsideration of the dismissal of your complaint, CHRO will issue
a release of jurisdiction, which grants you the right to file a civil aciion in $uperior Court"
lf CHRO denies your request for reconsideration, you may appeal that decision to the
Superior Court of the State of Connec{icut. Any appeal must strictly comply with all of
the applicable statutory procedures, requiremenis, and time frames. You may wish to
consult an attorney regarding ihe proper filing of an administnative appeal.
Dated and entered into the record of the Otfice of the Commission this 17th of February,
20{0.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
COfuIMISSIOI.I ON HUI4AN R'GHTS
AND OPPORTUNITIES
Tanya Hughes
Regional ManagerlDesignee
cc:
Aitorney Rob $erafinowicz
38 CentralAvenue
Waterbury, CT. 06702
FEB I9lfiil
MAR 401.D
F?c.: 'l 'l -r??/1Of14