As used in section 4a-60a and this chapter:
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-51
(1949 Rev., S. 7401; 1959, P.A. 145, S. 1; 1967, P.A. 253; 636, S. 5, 6; P.A. 75-350, S. 1; P.A. 76-96, S. 1, 2; P.A. 77-452, S. 61, 72; P.A. 80-422, S. 1; 80-449, S. 3, 6; P.A. 81-81, S. 3; 81-382, S. 1; P.A. 82-51, S. 2; P.A. 83-587, S. 56, 96; P.A. 84-204; P.A. 88-303, S. 4; P.A. 90-246, S. 1; 90-330, S. 2, 11; P.A. 91-58 , S. 20 ; P.A. 95-79 , S. 167 , 189 ; P.A. 01-28 , S. 1 ; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, S. 189; P.A. 07-142 , S. 1 ; P.A. 11-55 , S. 1 ; 11-129 , S. 20 ; P.A. 15-56 , S. 2 ; 15-249 , S. 1 ; P.A. 17-127 , S. 1 ; 17-202 , S. 96 .)
Annotations to former section 31-122: Cited. 153 C. 173 ; 163 C. 327 . A corporation is not privileged under chapter to do what an individual is precluded from doing; segregating employment opportunity advertisements into sex classifications constitutes discrimination. 168 C. 26 . Court cannot substitute its own discretion for that reposed by statute in hearing tribunal. 18 CS 125 . Cited. 28 CS 472 . Annotations to present section: Cited. 188 C. 44 ; 195 C. 226 ; 220 C. 307 ; 226 C. 670 ; 231 C. 328 ; 236 C. 96 ; 237 C. 209 . Plaintiff who testified at trial that he had sustained a knee injury during course of his employment that required surgery and resulted in his receiving worker's compensation benefits and a disability rating for his knee satisfied statutory definition of being "physically disabled" under Subdiv. (15). 278 C. 692 . Appellate Court properly applied the federal "remuneration test" rather than Connecticut's common-law "right to control" test to determine whether individual was an employee under section. 322 C. 154 . Cited. 3 CA 464 ; 35 CA 474 . Subdiv. (10) does not evince an intent by General Assembly to grant small businesses a license to discriminate, but instead evidences intention to exempt small businesses from the other burdens of act, not from its antidiscrimination policy. 64 CA 573 . Subdiv. (15): Definition does not extend to those who may be regarded or perceived as disabled by their employers. 137 CA 446 . Re definition of "employee", common law "agency" or "right of control" test alone is insufficient in determining whether an individual is an employee; only if federal "remuneration" test is satisfied would a court apply common law "agency" or "right of control" test; courts may look to federal precedent for guidance in enforcing antidiscrimination statutes. 156 CA 239 ; judgment affirmed, see 322 Conn. 154 . Court reasonably could have concluded that plaintiff was not suffering from a mental disorder defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but rather from a more general lack of requisite temperament. Id., 597.