Retaliation 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

Arbitration Agreement waiver scope. Trial court properly found that the parties' dispute was not governed by arbitration plaintiff's claims existed independently of the employment relationship and her R.C. Chapter 4112-based claims were not subject to arbitration due to lack of sufficient evidence of assent and/or waiver.

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.