709 A.2d 1156
(AC 17195)Appellate Court of Connecticut
Foti, Lavery and Hennessy, Js.
Argued March 27, 1998
Officially released May 5, 1998
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appeal from the decision by the named defendant determining that the plaintiff had engaged in discriminatory employment practices and ordering, inter alia, the reinstatement of the defendant Kendell Lewis to his employment by the plaintiff, brought to the Superior
Page 562
Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford and tried to the court, Maloney, J.; judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Susan M. Wright, for the appellant (plaintiff).
C. Joan Parker, assistant commission counsel, with whom were Pamela R. Hershinson and, on the brief, Philip A. Murphy, Jr., commission counsel, for the appellees (defendants).
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, Ames Department Stores, Inc. (Ames), appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its appeal from a decision of the defendant commission on human rights and opportunities (commission). The commission found that the plaintiff discriminated against an employee, the defendant Kendall Lewis, on account of his race and ordered him reinstated with back pay. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) found that the commission had satisfied certain jurisdictional prerequisites to certifying a complaint and (2) affirmed the decision of the hearing officer, which was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.
After our plenary review of the record, transcripts and briefs, and after considering the oral arguments and affording the plaintiff’s claims the appropriate scope of review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
The trial court filed a complete and legally sound memorandum of decision incorporating the facts found and setting forth legal conclusions made in conformity with applicable law. Because the trial court’s decision completely articulates the issues involved and adequately explains the legal basis for its conclusions, it may be referred to for a detailed discussion of the facts
Page 563
and applicable law. See Koehm v. Kuhn, 18 Conn. App. 313, 315, 557 A.2d 933 (1989); see also Faith Center, Inc. v. Hartford, 192 Conn. 434, 436, 472 A.2d 16, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1018, 105 S.Ct. 432, 83 L.Ed.2d 359 (1984); Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp., 192 Conn. 252, 253, 470 A.2d 1216 (1984).
Accordingly, the trial court’s memorandum of decision, reported i Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Commission on Human Rights Opportunities, 45 Conn. Sup. 276, ___ A.2d ___ (1997), should be referred to for a detailed discussion of the facts and legal conclusions in the case.
The judgment is affirmed.