No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Court affirmed summary judgment for employer PSEG on plaintiff's ADA and FMLA claims, finding plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case under ADA (not otherwise qualified due to unreliable attendance) and failed to show pretext for termination under FMLA (employer's no-call/no-show policy was legitimate, non-retaliatory reason).
VandenBroek v. PSEG Power Connecticut LLC
What Happened
An employee sued PSEG Power Connecticut LLC, claiming the company discriminated against and wrongfully fired him based on disability and family medical leave. The worker argued his termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
What the Court Decided
The court ruled in favor of the employer. The judge found the employee could not prove he was qualified for his job despite his disability, citing poor attendance as the problem. The court also determined the company had a valid, non-discriminatory reason for firing him: violating the company's no-call/no-show policy. The employee failed to show the company was actually retaliating against him for taking medical leave.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that employers can fire workers for legitimate attendance problems, even if they have disabilities or medical leave. However, workers should know companies must still make reasonable efforts to accommodate disabilities and cannot fire someone solely for taking protected family medical leave. Attendance violations provide employers with a defense against retaliation claims.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in VandenBroek v. PSEG Power Ct LLC from the same court.
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.