Skip to main content

Monts v. Board of Education

Conn. App. Ct.July 20, 2021No. AC43856
Defendant WinBoard of Education
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Prescott; Suarez; Bear
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Appeal from trial court judgment for defendant; appellate affirmance

Related Laws

Claim Types

Disability Discrimination

Outcome

The trial court found for the defendant Board of Education on disability discrimination and FMLA interference claims. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish an FMLA interference claim and that the jury verdict for the defendant on remaining claims was proper.

Excerpt

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for, inter alia, disability discrimination pursuant to the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (§ 46a-51 et seq.) and for interference with the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.) following the termination of her employment. The plaintiff was first hired by the defendant in 1995 but her position was eliminated and she was termi- nated in June, 2015. The plaintiff was rehired for a new position in August, 2015, and was subject to a probationary period for her first 120 days at work. In September, 2015, the plaintiff injured her left knee and lower back while at work. The plaintiff was placed on modified work duty but was eventually placed on an indefinite leave of absence and remained on leave until October, 2015. She missed additional work in November, 2015, after she experienced a flare-up of her knee injury. All of the time that she missed from work was considered workers' compensation leave by the defendant. The plaintiff received two negative performance evaluations in January and February, 2016, based solely on her performance while she was at work. The plaintiff was terminated for her poor job performance in March, 2016. During the trial on the plaintiff's complaint, the trial court declined to instruct the jury on the plaintiff's FMLA interference claim, concluding that there was no evidence to support the claim that the plaintiff made an FMLA request to the defendant. On the plaintiff's remaining claims, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant and the court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court properly declined to charge the jury with regard to the plaintiff's claim of interference with the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993: the plaintiff failed to satisfy the preliminary requirement for the court to consider her interference claim, namely, that she made an initial showing

What This Ruling Means

**Monts v. Board of Education: Court Rules Against Employee in Disability and Leave Case** This case involved a school employee named Monts who sued her employer, the Board of Education, claiming disability discrimination and interference with her family medical leave rights. Monts had worked for the school district since 1995, but her position was eliminated and she was terminated in 2015. She was later rehired for a different position in August of that same year. After her employment ended again, she filed a lawsuit seeking money damages. The court ruled in favor of the Board of Education on both claims. The trial court found that Monts failed to prove her case, and when she appealed, the higher court agreed. The appellate court determined that Monts could not establish that her employer had interfered with her Family and Medical Leave Act rights, and upheld the jury's decision against her on the disability discrimination claim. **What This Means for Workers:** This case shows how challenging it can be to win employment discrimination and FMLA cases. Workers need strong evidence to prove their employers violated their rights. Simply being terminated or having workplace difficulties doesn't automatically mean discrimination occurred. Employees considering similar lawsuits should carefully document incidents and consult with employment attorneys to understand whether they have viable claims before proceeding to court.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Board of Education v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
Unknown CourtMay 2022

The plaintiff employer appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities sustaining a disability discrimination complaint filed by the defendant employee, L, and awarding L, inter alia, back pay and emotional distress damages. L, who is hearing impaired, was hired by the plaintiff in 2012 and assigned to a secretarial position in its education personnel department. She worked directly for the human resources assistant, M, and performed many of the same tasks as him and covered his duties when he was absent from the office. As a result of her hearing impairment, L tended to speak loudly, and, on occasion, coworkers had raised concerns to T, the department's interim director, about the volume of her voice. In addition, S, who worked in the civil service personnel department, had inquired whether there was something wrong with L and had told M that he thought that L was loud and unprofessional. In 2014, M informed L that he intended to retire the following year. M encouraged L to apply for his position, began teaching her any duties of the position that she was not already performing, and strongly supported her candidacy. In August, 2015, the position was posted online, and L submitted an application. L met the qualifications listed in the posting. Two weeks later, S had the job posting removed and revised because he felt that he had a vested interest in assuring that the position was filled correctly. S interviewed prospective candidates for the position. Six candidates were interviewed for the position and two, P and J, were hired. L was not granted an interview because S concluded that she did not satisfy the revised minimum requirement of four years of human resources experience set forth in the revised job posting. After M retired, L became the interim human resources assistant until P's employment com- menced. In her complaint, L claimed that the plaintiff had discriminated against her on the basis of her

Plaintiff Win
Teter
D. Haw.May 2020
Mixed Result
Castaneda
N.D. Ill.Mar 2019
Remanded
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Autozone, Inc.
7th CircuitFeb 2013
Plaintiff Win
Spitulski
Ohio Ct. App.Sep 2018

Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction of age discrimination claim against school board where employee elected to file OCRC charge tortious violation of rights not recognized claim under Ohio law employee failed to submit proper evidence to support disability discrimination claim employee failed to make prima facie case of retaliation conduct supporting IIED claim not sufficiently extreme and outrageous no abuse of discretion in affirming termination under R.C. 3319.16.

Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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.