Connecticut Employment Law Blog Insight on Labor & Employment Developments for Connecticut Businesses

Tag Archives: duty to accommodate

New EEOC Guidance Raises Questions About Post-Termination Duty to Accommodate in Connecticut

By Daniel Schwartz on Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Discrimination & Harassment, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Laws and Regulations, Litigation

Nearly six months ago, a landmark ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court held that Connecticut’s anti-discrimination laws required employers to provide a reasonable accommodation to disabled workers, much like the federal counterpart, the ADA. As I noted in an earlier post about the case, Curry v. Allen S. Goodman, Inc., the Court suggested that the employer had a… Continue Reading

Second Circuit Holds that Employees Don’t Always Bear the Burden of Informing the Employer of a Need for Accommodation under the ADA

By Daniel Schwartz on Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Litigation

The "reasonable accommodation" requirements under the ADA continue to be a source of questions and confusion for employers. However, on the topic of whose responsibility it is to raise the issue of a reasonable accommodation, the law has been fairly clear in the Second Circuit (which covers Connecticut, New York and Vermont) that it is… Continue Reading

The Employer Strikes Back: Supreme Court Asked To Reconsider Curry v. Allan S. Goodman Decision

By Daniel Schwartz on Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Discrimination & Harassment, Litigation

Last month, I addressed the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, which expanded state disability laws to match (or in some cases, exceed) the scope of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The employer has moved, on limited grounds, to have the court reconsider its decision.  You can download a… Continue Reading

Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc. – The Employee’s Perspective

By Daniel Schwartz on Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Discrimination & Harassment, Litigation

I’ve returned from vacation today with hundreds of e-mails to dig through and about 3000 posts in various RSS feeds. But one e-mail I received relating to the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision earlier this month in Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, bears some immediate discussion. The comments are from Attorney Richard Hayber, the attorney representing the employee… Continue Reading

Curry v. Allan S. Goodman Part V – Do Employers Now Need to Accommodate Mental Disorders and Learning Disabilities?

By Daniel Schwartz on Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Discrimination & Harassment, Litigation

Reading the Connecticut Supreme Court case of Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc. decided last week,  I’m struck by how many questions the decision seems to raise — and how many are left unanswered. I’ve discussed the case and some questions it raises before, most recently here.  The case appears to stand for the proposition that… Continue Reading

Curry v. Allan S. Goodman Part IV – Does an Employer Have a Duty to Accommodate an Employee EVEN AFTER Firing?

By Daniel Schwartz on Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Discrimination & Harassment, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Laws and Regulations, Litigation

Like the television show, Lost, reading the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc. will leave readers with more questions than answers at the end of the day.  (For more background on the case, see this prior post.) Those unanswered and indeed, troubling questions arise from the suggestion by the Connecticut Supreme… Continue Reading

Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc. Part III – Duty to Engage in “Interactive Process” Found in Connecticut Law

By Daniel Schwartz on Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Discrimination & Harassment, Litigation

In prior posts here and here, I’ve discussed an important new Connecticut Supreme Court case released this week, Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc. and the effect it has on providing disabled employees with "reasonable accommodation". However, the Supreme Court’s decision goes beyond that. The Court also find that state law imposes a duty on employers… Continue Reading

Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc. – Part II; Reviewing the Court’s Logic

By Daniel Schwartz on Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Discrimination & Harassment, Litigation

Yesterday, I provided some highlights about the important case of Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc. (can we all just agree to call it Curry v. Goodman?)   The case is the first appellate decision in Connecticut that applies the reasonable accommodation provisions found in federal law, to state law. The effect is that small employers… Continue Reading

Connecticut Supreme Court Rules that Employers Have Implicit Duty to Accommodate Under State Law – Part I

By Daniel Schwartz on Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Discrimination & Harassment, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Litigation

In a case that automatically vaults to the top of important disability discrimination cases in Connecticut, the Connecticut Supreme Court today held, in an issue of first impression, that employers have a duty to provide a reasonable accommodation to disabled workers under state law, even though the law does not explicitly say so.  While the… Continue Reading