Constructive Discharge Cases

The plaintiff, who was employed as a nurse by the defendant, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, sought to recover damages for employment discrimination and retaliation, in violation of the Con- necticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) (§ 46a-51 et seq.). The plaintiff was diagnosed with allergic and nonallergic rhinitis and asthma and began experiencing debilitating reactions when exposed to scents. As a result, she requested, and the committee tasked with reviewing requests for accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) on behalf of the defendant approved, certain workplace accommodations, including designating the unit to which the plaintiff was assigned as a scent-free environment and providing a high efficiency particulate air filtration system for that unit. Some employees failed to comply with the scent-free designation, and, to avoid adverse reactions, the plaintiff would use fans to disperse scents and seek refuge in an office that was free of scents. The plaintiff's attorney subsequently requested a meeting with the defendant in order to engage in the informal, interactive process required by CFEPA, pursu- ant to which the employee and the employer are to identify the precise limitations resulting from the employee's disability and potential, reason- able accommodations for those limitations. The chairperson of the ADA review committee met with the plaintiff and her attorney, but, with limited exceptions, the defendant took no additional measures to enforce the scent-free designation. After filing a complaint with and obtaining a release of jurisdiction from the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), the plaintiff commenced the present action, alleging unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of her disabil- ity. While the case was pending, the defendant updated its scent exposure protocols, and those updates prohibited the plaintiff from using fans

workers' compensation Seagraves test constructive refusal of suitable employment

Trial court erred in excluding evidence as hearsay where evidence was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted and where probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect in giving jury instructions that were not supported by the evidence in directing verdict on the basis of immunity where question existed whether the defendants acted in bad faith, with malice, or recklessly and in excluding expert witness on damages and not recognizing concept of constructive discharge.