The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision upholding the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities' finding that the Board of Education discriminated against a hearing-impaired employee by failing to interview and promote her, and affirmed the award of back pay and emotional distress damages.
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
Court Rules in Favor of Hearing-Impaired Employee
What Happened
A hearing-impaired woman hired by the Waterbury Board of Education in 2012 as a secretary filed a discrimination complaint. She claimed the school board failed to give her fair consideration for promotions and didn't provide necessary accommodations for her disability. The school board appealed a lower court's decision that sided with the employee.
What the Court Decided
The appeals court upheld the lower court's ruling against the Board of Education. The court found that the school board had discriminated against the employee by refusing to interview and promote her because of her hearing impairment. The court confirmed she should receive back pay for lost wages and compensation for emotional distress caused by the discrimination.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case reinforces that employers must treat disabled employees fairly when considering promotions. Employers cannot ignore qualified workers simply because they have disabilities. Companies must provide reasonable accommodations and evaluate disabled employees the same way they evaluate other employees. Workers facing similar discrimination have legal protections and can seek damages when employers violate these rights.
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.