Thibodeau v. Design Group One Architects, LLC (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** FLYNN, J., concurring. I concur with the result and most of the rationale of the majority s opinion. Certainly, there is a strong public policy in our state that women should be treated equally with men under our laws. I agree that policy is strongly and clearly expressed in article twenty-one of the amendments to the constitution of Connecticut, the resolution of our General Assembly approving the federal Equal Rights Amendment,1 provisions of federal laws cited by the majority and by our Supreme Court in Evening Sentinel v. National Organization for Women, 168 Conn. 26, 357 A.2d 498 (1975). Not only is that policy a strong and clear one, but it is a fundamental one when a person s claim of deprivation of those equal rights arises out of her pregnancy. Both sexes cooperate in the procreation of the human race, but only women become pregnant, carry precious human life within them and give birth. To discriminate against persons because of pregnancy is to discriminate against women. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 462 U.S. 669, 684, 103 S. Ct. 2622, 77 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1983). The guarantee of equal rights for pregnant women is not only a strong and clear public policy, but a fundamental one that addresses the very continuance of the human race. If the need to uphold the public policy expressed in our pure food and drug laws justified an exception to the atwill status of the employee in Sheets v. Teddy s Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471, 427 A.2d 385 (1980), the right to equal protection of our laws enjoyed by a woman in the workplace who is pregnant and wrongfully terminated from employment for that reason is stronger. But more it is fundamental to any system of jurisprudence worthy of the name. I write separately because I would not ground the public policy used to make the Sheets claim in the very statute, the Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes ยง 46a-51 et seq., which also makes the legislative determination that it will not permit a remedy under that act against an employer with fewer than three employees. Instead, I would look to the act only to ensure that its policy is not at odds with the public policy we find elsewhere, conclude that the act s statutory policy is consistent with the strong, clear and fundamental public policy we find in the other sources, and permit a Sheets type remedy if the at-will employee in the small workplace can prove her claim that she was wrongfully discharged because of pregnancy. 1 House J.R. No. 1, Jan. Sess., Pt. 1, Vol. 1, 1973 Public Acts, p. LXXIV.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
