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

Tag Archives: reasonable accommodation

Oh Lucy! Accommodations for Religious Beliefs and Disabilities Apply Different Standards

Posted in Uncategorized

Here’s a hypothetical: A observant Jewish worker who is a recent leg amputee comes to you seeking an “accommodation”.  She works on the candy wrapping line that requires constant supervision and is staffed by only one or two people typically.  She seeks to leave her shift 4 hours early on Fridays to observe the Jewish sabbath.  She also seeks to take frequent breaks to rest for her… Continue Reading

Wait, “Inflexible” Leave Policies Are Actually Okay? Sometimes.

Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Litigation

So last month we talked about how an employer may, in some circumstances, need to give additional leave as an accommodation above and beyond the Family and Medical Leave Act.  Today, my colleague Clarisse Thomas shows how the law in this area really is still developing.  She highlights a new case that comes to a different… Continue Reading

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: The Fallout From Allowing Excessive Absences

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Litigation

Today my colleague Chris Engler returns with a post that tackles a recent case that explores what should happen when an employee has exhausted her FMLA leave.  Case closed? Well, not exactly, as Chris explains.   Most readers have heard the admonition that “No good deed goes unpunished.”  (Readers might be less aware that the… Continue Reading

Road Rules: Ruling Now Guides Telecommuting As Reasonable Accommodation Discussion

Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Class Actions, Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight, Litigation

My colleague, Gabe Jiran predicted the future! Well, not exactly. But in a post earlier this month, he outlined some of the issues relating to whether telecommuting is a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. And now we have some court guidance on the subject.  The road to understanding an aspect of the “reasonable accommodation” is… Continue Reading

Could Telecommuting Be Deemed a “Reasonable Accommodation” Under the ADA?

Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight, Wage & Hour

My colleague, Gabe Jiran, (go read his impressive background here, I’ll wait) recently gave a presentation on telecommuting and I asked Gabe to share his thoughts on a notable topic that came up for discussion there.  Thus, in this post, Gabe discusses whether telecommuting could be a “reasonable accommodation.” With today’s technology, employees seem to… Continue Reading

Interactive Process is Two-Way Street, Appellate Court Affirms

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Litigation

The Connecticut Appellate Court will officially release an opinion next week that reaffirms that the interactive process required by both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the state law equivalent to discuss a reasonable accommodation to a disability, requires the employee to engage in the process as well. The case, Festa v. Board of Education,… Continue Reading

Is Being On Time an Essential Function of Job? Second Circuit Says Most Times But Not Always

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Litigation, Manager & HR Pro’s Resource Center

I’m late / I’m late / For a very important date. / No time to say “Hello, Goodbye”. / I’m late, I’m late, I’m late. — White Rabbit, from “Alice in Wonderland” (1951) Let’s start with the premise, as the Second Circuit does, that “In many, if not most, employment contexts, a timely arrival is… Continue Reading

Medical Marijuana and Work: Where We Stand Now

Posted in Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Laws and Regulations, Manager & HR Pro’s Resource Center

It’s been nearly two months since Connecticut’s “medical marijuana” law became effective.  Yet many employers have been blissfully ignorant about what the law provides, perhaps because Connecticut does not yet have a home-grown supply of marijuana and the registration process is just beginning. But because of the law’s appeal, I would expect the impact to increase substantially… Continue Reading

Medical Marijuana Giving Employers Headaches Already

Posted in Uncategorized

Today, our firm held the last of two free seminars on employment law. Thanks to all who attended. Surprisingly, one of the issues our attendees had a bunch of questions on was the new medical marijuana bill that became effective October 1, 2012.  Now, I’m not going to go back over the entire bill in… Continue Reading

Medical Marijuana Bill Includes Restrictions For Employers

Posted in Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Legislative Developments

The General Assembly over the weekend passed a comprehensive bill that permits individuals to use marijuana for palliative purposes.  The bill is expected to be signed by the Governor this month. Besides just permitting individuals to use marijuana, it has several important provisions that will impact employers in Connecticut.  Unfortunately, as the history of medical marijuana… Continue Reading

Second Circuit Rejects ADA Claim of Reassignment to Vacant Position

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Litigation

The Second Circuit has been a bit busier of late making it tougher to keep up with all the developments (though I would suggest the Wait a Second blog as a good site to follow to do so). Yesterday, in McBride v. BIC Consumer Products (download here), the Second Circuit rejected an employee’s ADA claim finding… Continue Reading

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

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

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

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

CHRO Ruling Holds that Learning and Mental Disabilities (Attention Deficit Disorder) Must be Accommodated on Promotion Test

Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Discrimination & Harassment, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Litigation

A few weeks ago, I pondered the impact that the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Curry v. Allan S. Goodman would have on cases involving learning and mental disabilities. Turns out, I didn’t need to wait long at all. A CHRO Hearing Officer has already used that decision to chime in and indicate that  must… Continue Reading

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

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?

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

Blogs and Newspapers React to Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc.

Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Discrimination & Harassment, Laws and Regulations, Litigation

The blog and press coverage of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s case of Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc. continues this week with two additional shout-outs to this blog.  In addition, another resource cited to the decision that is worth mentioning. First up, the well-run and informative Point of Law blog, edited by Walter Olsen, discusses the… Continue Reading

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

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

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

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

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

Is Reassignment to Vacant Position Required under ADA? Prepare to Wait Further to Find Out

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Litigation

Last month, I reported that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case of Huber v. Wal-Mart, to decide whether disabled employees must be reassigned to a vacant position for which they are qualified or merely be permitted to apply for such a position. Yesterday, however, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to dismiss the… Continue Reading

ADA Reassignment: Must Employee Be Reassigned to Vacant Position or Merely Be Permitted to Apply

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment

The U.S. Supreme Court this afternoon granted certiorari to an important question under the Americans with Disabilities Act, namely whether disabled employees must be reassigned to a vacant position for which they are qualified or merely be permitted to apply for such a position. In Huber v. Walmart, the Eighth Circuit held for the employer… Continue Reading