Failure to Accommodate Cases

The plaintiff employee sought to recover damages for the defendant employ- er's alleged violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (§ 46a-51 et seq.). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her disability as a result of the defendant's failure to provide her with a reasonable accommodation and retaliated against her for filing a complaint of disability discrimination. The plaintiff suffered from allergic and non-allergic rhinitis and asthma and was sensitive to scents, and, as a result, she requested a scent-free work environment and a HEPA filter for the office. The defendant's American with Disabilities Act review committee approved the plaintiff's request for a reasonable accommodation. Some employees, however, did not comply with the scent-free working environment designation. The plain- tiff filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Oppor- tunities and it issued a release of jurisdiction to sue. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed and the plaintiff cross appealed. Held: 1. Contrary to the plaintiff's claim, the defendant's appeal was not moot because it failed to challenge the court's judgment on the plaintiff's retaliation claim; the defendant challenged evidence the trial court admitted and relied on to determine that the defendant failed to engage in the interactive process and this determination was not limited to the plaintiff's discrimination claim and, thus, because the two claims and the trial court's rulings thereon were intertwined, the defendant's appeal sufficiently challenged the court's judgment as to both counts. 2. The trial court improperly imposed liability on the defendant on the basis of inadmissible evidence, and, accordingly, the case was remanded for a new trial; the court impermissibly considered e-mails exchanged between the parties that constituted settlement communications on the issue of liability, and based its fi

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendants for employment discrimination pursuant to the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (§ 46a-51 et seq.) following the termination of her employment. The plaintiff, who was employed by the defendants as a certified nursing assistant (CNA), alleged that she was approved for unpaid leave by the defendants in order to undergo knee surgery but, while she was recovering from that surgery, she was terminated for failing to report to work and for failing to report her absences on two dates that occurred approximately one week before her surgery. The plaintiff alleged that prior to these absences, she received a phone call from one of the defendants' employees, who told her not to report to work on those two dates, as the defendants were overbooked with CNAs. Since her surgery, the plaintiff has not sought work as a CNA, because she believed she has not yet recovered sufficiently to perform the essential functions required of that position. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and in support thereof, submitted various documents including the defendants' attendance policy, portions of the plaintiff's sworn depo- sition, disciplinary reports warning the plaintiff about her absenteeism and the certified letter sent to the plaintiff, which terminated her employ- ment. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judg- ment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court erred in rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to the plaintiff's discrimination claims, as there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the termination of the plaintiff's employment was pretextual and as to whether, at the time her employment was terminated, the plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job, with a reasonable accommodation of a leave of absence: the record was devoid of any evidence regarding how

Summary judgment in favor of appellee on claims of disability discrimination and retaliation is appropriate where appellant provided no evidence that he was able to perform the functions of the job, even with a reasonable accommodation, or that he engaged in a protected activity, respectively. Trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying motion for leave to amend the complaint where motion was untimely filed after summary judgment motion, resulting in prejudice to appellee.

In an original action challenging the industrial commission's additional award for violation of specific safety requirement ("VSSR") pursuant to Admin. Code 4123:1-5-05(D)(1), the employer's request for a writ of mandamus is not warranted where the commission did not abuse its discretion in determining that the injured claimant was the "operator" of the machine at issue and the VSSR proximately caused the claimant's injury. Writ of mandamus denied.