Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593 (2024)

Citation
Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593 (2024)
Parent Document
Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593 (2024)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2024-10-15

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text

1,559 chars
In the present case, however, the defendant never
       sought to invoke the grievance process. Moreover, on
       appeal, she does not claim that that the plaintiff’s proce-
       dure violates the federal statute by failing to afford her
       ‘‘an opportunity for a hearing before an impartial party
       upon timely request within’’ thirty days.11 Instead, she
       claims that, ‘‘[b]ecause . . . [the plaintiff’s] pretermi-
       nation notice failed to provide the proper time frame for
       [her] to initiate [the plaintiff’s] administrative grievance
       process,’’ the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
       Given the differences between the claim raised by the
       defendant in the present case and the claim addressed
       by the court in Love, her reliance on that case is mis-
       placed. The court in Love considered whether the griev-
       ance procedure itself denied the tenant ‘‘an opportunity
       for a hearing before an impartial party upon timely
       request,’’ and not whether 42 U.S.C. § 1437d (k) (2)
       required that the pretermination notice specify the time
       frame for invoking the grievance process. Accordingly,
       Love is distinguishable from the present case.
         11
            We note that, although the parties’ lease reflects that the plaintiff pro-
       vided the defendant with a copy of its ‘‘Grievance Policy and Procedure,’’
       that document does not appear in the record.
Page 14                     CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0