Skip to main content

Cendant Corp. v. Commissioner of Labor

Conn.October 25, 2005No. SC 17183Cited 7 times
Plaintiff WinCendant Corporation
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Vertefeuille
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed that Cendant Corporation violated the Connecticut Family and Medical Leave Law by failing to reinstate Kim Persky to her position following her maternity leave, rejecting the employer's arguments regarding causation and analytical framework.

What This Ruling Means

**The Dispute** Cendant Corporation employee Kim Persky took maternity leave under Connecticut's Family and Medical Leave Law. When she tried to return to work after her leave ended, the company failed to give her back her original position. Persky sued, claiming Cendant violated state law by not reinstating her properly after her protected family leave. **The Court's Decision** The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of Persky, finding that Cendant Corporation broke the law. The court rejected the company's arguments about why they didn't have to reinstate her, affirming that the employer had violated Connecticut's Family and Medical Leave Law. The court upheld that employees have a clear right to return to their positions after taking legally protected leave. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling strengthens protections for employees taking family or medical leave in Connecticut. It confirms that employers cannot simply refuse to reinstate workers who return from protected leave. The decision makes clear that companies must honor their obligation to restore employees to their positions after leave, helping ensure workers won't lose their jobs for exercising their legal rights to time off for family emergencies or medical needs.

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

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
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.