No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for the law firm defendant, holding that the plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding her disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation claims under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. The court determined as a matter of law that the plaintiff's proposed accommodation of working entirely from home was unreasonable because it would eliminate an essential job function.
The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment for the defendant, rendered following its grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's complaint alleging, inter alia, employment discrimination based on disability. The plaintiff claimed that the court improperly concluded that a genuine issue of material fact did not exist with respect to her claims. Held: The trial court properly rendered summary judgment for the defendant, as the evidence, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff's position, at the time of her hiring, required some measure of in person work in the office, and the same evidence also established, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff's proposed accommodation to work entirely from home was not reasonable because that accommodation would elimi- nate an essential job function. Argued November 12, 2024—officially released July 1, 2025
Castelino v. Whitman, Breed, Abbott & Morgan, LLC
What Happened
A former employee sued her law firm employer, claiming she faced discrimination because of a disability. She also claimed the company failed to reasonably accommodate her needs and retaliated against her. The employee asked to work entirely from home as an accommodation.
What the Court Decided
The appellate court sided with the law firm. The judges agreed that the company did not need to grant the remote work arrangement because working in the office was an essential part of the job. The court found the employee had not presented enough evidence to create a genuine dispute about the facts.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling shows that employers can deny accommodation requests if the requested change would eliminate core job duties. While workers with disabilities have protection rights, those protections have limits. If your job fundamentally requires in-person work, an employer may legally refuse a work-from-home request as unreasonable. Workers should understand that disability accommodations must be feasible and cannot eliminate essential job functions.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.