No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment on the plaintiff's discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding pretext and qualification, and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed dismissal of retaliation claims due to inadequate briefing.
The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendants for employment discrimination pursuant to the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (§ 46a-51 et seq.) following the termination of her employment. The plaintiff, who was employed by the defendants as a certified nursing assistant (CNA), alleged that she was approved for unpaid leave by the defendants in order to undergo knee surgery but, while she was recovering from that surgery, she was terminated for failing to report to work and for failing to report her absences on two dates that occurred approximately one week before her surgery. The plaintiff alleged that prior to these absences, she received a phone call from one of the defendants' employees, who told her not to report to work on those two dates, as the defendants were overbooked with CNAs. Since her surgery, the plaintiff has not sought work as a CNA, because she believed she has not yet recovered sufficiently to perform the essential functions required of that position. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and in support thereof, submitted various documents including the defendants' attendance policy, portions of the plaintiff's sworn depo- sition, disciplinary reports warning the plaintiff about her absenteeism and the certified letter sent to the plaintiff, which terminated her employ- ment. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judg- ment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court erred in rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to the plaintiff's discrimination claims, as there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the termination of the plaintiff's employment was pretextual and as to whether, at the time her employment was terminated, the plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job, with a reasonable accommodation of a leave of absence: the record was devoid of any evidence regarding how
Stubbs v. ICare Management, LLC – Plain English Summary
What Happened
A certified nursing assistant working at a Connecticut care center was approved for unpaid leave to have knee surgery. While she was recovering, the facility fired her for not showing up to work during her approved medical leave. She sued, claiming the employer discriminated against her because of her disability and failed to accommodate her medical condition.
What the Court Decided
The appellate court sided with the employee on two important points. The court found that a jury should decide whether the employer's real reason for firing her was discrimination or simply a cover-up for unfair treatment. The court sent the case back to a lower court for a trial. The court did reject her retaliation claim because her lawyer didn't present enough evidence about it.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling protects employees who take approved medical leave. Employers cannot simply fire workers for missing shifts during court-approved medical absences. Workers with disabilities have the right to pursue discrimination claims even when employers give official reasons for termination.
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.