Matson v. DMH - 9930311, Ruling Re: Commission's Motion for Sanctions
CASE NO. 9930311
EEOC NO. 16aa993147
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ex rel. : Joel F. Matson
State of Connecticut Department Mental Health
March 25, 2004
Re: Commission's Motion for Sanctions
On March 10, 2004, the Commission filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to my order dated March 3, 2004. Pursuant to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 46a-54-89a(b) and for the following reasons the Motion for Sanctions is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part:
On March 8, 2004, the Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Ruling dated February 13, 2004 and the Order dated March 3, 2004. The Ruling had granted the Commission's Motion to Compel the Respondent to comply with certain production requests. The Order had stated that if the Respondent had yet to comply with the Ruling of February 13, 2004, the Commission may file a motion for sanctions on or before March 10, 2004. On March 12, 2004, the Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration was denied and specifically stated that the Respondent had not provided any pertinent law supporting its position to not comply with the Ruling of February 13, 2004 and essentially to not comply with the Commission's requests for production. The Respondent has not responded to the Motion for Sanctions within the allotted fourteen days. In addition, the Respondent still has not provided any pertinent law to support its position to not comply with the Ruling of February 13, 2004 or the Order of March 3, 2004. I have not received a notice from any of the parties stating the Respondent is in full compliance with the Ruling of February 13, 2004 or that it has fully complied with the Commission's production requests.
In the Motion for Sanctions item number:
1) That all of Respondent's exhibits be excluded from admission into evidence and into the record, is hereby DENIED;
2) That Respondent's objections to the Commission's and/or Complainant's exhibits and witnesses be overruled, is hereby DENIED;
3) That an order be entered finding that Complainant Matson was treated differently (less favorably) than similarly situated employees not in Complainant's protected class, is hereby GRANTED;
4) That an order be entered finding that similarly situated employees not in Complainant's protected class were never placed on administrative leave for having filed work place violation reports, is hereby GRANTED;
5) That an order be entered excluding the Respondent from introducing into evidence documents or testimony regarding the Complainant's alleged symptoms or patterns of retaliation and recrimination is hereby GRANTED.
So Ordered this _____ day of March 2004.
The Honorable Donna Maria Wilkerson
Human Rights Referee
c. Mr. Joel F. Matson
C. Joan Parker, Asst. Commission Counsel II
Edward F. Osswalt, AAG