Posted by Meaghan Kirby in Employment Law
Apr 15 2026
The State of Connecticut Auditors of Public Accounts recently released an audit of the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (“CHRO”) covering fiscal years 2023 and 2024, and the findings raise important concerns about how employment discrimination complaints in Connecticut are being handled. The CHRO is the state agency charged with enforcing Connecticut’s anti-discrimination laws, including handling mediations, investigating employment discrimination claims, and determining whether there is “reasonable cause” to proceed.
The audit found that the CHRO failed to meet statutory processing deadlines in 100% of the cases reviewed (20 out of 20 discrimination complaints). When a complaint is filed, the CHRO is required, by law, to notify the respondent employer within 15 days, and a case assessment review must be conducted within 60 days of the respondent’s answer. Additional deadlines govern many of the CHRO’s complaint processes. The audit revealed that the CHRO repeatedly missed those deadlines:
- In 19 of 20 cases, the CHRO was late in notifying the respondents of the complaints against them by two to 167 days.
- In 13 of 20 cases, the CHRO completed assessment reviews one to 126 days late.
- In 10 of 20 cases, the CHRO assigned cases to an internal investigator late by two to 55 days.
- In 16 of 20 cases, the case investigator failed to make ultimate decisions (either “final cause” determinations or Early Legal Intervention decisions) within the statutory deadlines. As for the 15 final cause determinations, the investigators made their decisions between 14-399 days late, with a median of 150 days late.
- In another area, the CHRO failed to submit eight required quarterly reports related to state contracting compliance, despite preparing them.
The data confirms what many employees and practitioners have experienced – delays in the CHRO are not isolated, but systemic. The auditors emphasized that the agency lacks sufficient staffing and modern information technology infrastructure to manage its caseload effectively, recommending additional resources and upgrades to improve efficiency.
For employees, this has real-world implications. Filing a complaint with the CHRO is often the first required step before bringing a discrimination claim in court. When the agency is backlogged or missing deadlines, employees may face prolonged uncertainty about their claims, delayed access to remedies, and extended periods without closure. In some cases, these delays can affect an employee’s strategic decisions – such as whether to wait for the CHRO’s findings or to request a release of jurisdiction to proceed in court. Employees considering filing a complaint should be aware of potential delays and consider consulting with an employment lawyer early to understand their options.
Posted by Meaghan Kirby in Employment Law
Tagged CHRO, Meaghan Kirby
