For anyone who has been following the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions interpreting wage & hour, discrimination and retaliation claims, yesterday’s decision in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics (download here), can hardly come as a surprise.
Indeed, in a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that to "file" a complaint, an employee need only provide
Today, my colleague Jonathan Orleans makes a return engagement to the blog, updating us on a decision released by the District Court of Connecticut yesterday that has relevance to various ADA cases in the state. The Defendant was successfully represented by another colleague of mine here at the firm, Marcy Stovall.
A decision issued yesterday by a federal district court in Connecticut provides some useful guidance on the distinction, for purposes of the Americans With Disabilities Act, between impairments that merely affect major life activities and those that substantially limit such activities.
The decision by Judge Janet Arterton also clarifies that in determining whether the plaintiff is substantially limited in important life activities, the plaintiff is compared to “most people,” not to any subgroup of the general population.
In Rumbin v. Association of American Medical Colleges (download here), the plaintiff sought various accommodations, including extra time, to take the Medical College Admission Test (the “MCAT”), claiming to be disabled because he was severely limited in the major life activity of seeing.
He submitted to the Association, which administers the MCAT, reports from his treating ophthalmologist and a behavioral optometrist who said that he had various vision-related impairments, including glaucoma, ocular misalignment, convergence insufficiency, binocular dysfunction, and oculomotor dysfunction.
The Association nonetheless denied his request for accommodation after having his application reviewed by its own expert, the Executive Director of the National Board of Examiners in Optometry, who found the reports of plaintiff’s doctors unconvincing on a variety of grounds.
(Interestingly, the Association presented evidence at trial that the MCAT is intentionally designed to be arduous and time-pressured, and that it is reluctant to grant requests for extra time because studies show that scores on tests where extra time is given are not equivalent to scores on tests using the standard timing.)
The Defendant was also represented by Robert Burgoyne of Fulbright & Jaworski in Washington, DC.Continue Reading Impairments That Merely Affect Major Life Activities Not Covered by ADA, Says Federal Court
Employees who are terminated by their employers are typically eligible for unemployment compensation in Connecticut unless an exception applies.
"Wilful Misconduct" is one of the limited exceptions (in Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-236), but it is not an easy exception to reach. A new decision from the Connecticut Appellate Court (to be officially released on March
"The United States is recommending U.S. citizens defer all non-essential travel to Bahrain."
Have you seen this headline? It’s from 20 years ago.
But strangely, that same headline made a reappearance this week. Don’t remember the last time it happened? Well, you should because a major Connecticut Supreme Court case arose out of it.
And
With spring just about here, it’s time for a little spring cleaning and time to catch up on some things you might have missed.
Like me, you might have overlooked the Connecticut Bar Association’s Labor & Employment Quarterly which was published a short while ago. If so, consider this your reminder that there are
In a decision to be officially released tomorrow, the Connecticut Appellate Court has affirmed a dismissal of a breach of contract claim that alleged that the company failed to follow procedures that were outlined in a management training seminar.
The case, Brule v. Nerac (download here), is important because it sets some limits to
With the river flooding that has been going on in Connecticut the last week and the forecasts for a tough spring, I had originally scheduled this post to discuss emergency preparedness for employers and how employers should deal with employees affected. 
Flooding is nothing new in Connecticut before and with more flooding expected, it seemed
So with the Supreme Court’s decision last week, there’s lots of other items that have slipped under the radar. (It’s Daylight Savings Time this Saturday, for example, which means spring is right around the corner.) Here’s some of things you might have missed:
The media storm over the last two weeks regarding actor Charlie Sheen (and his Tiger Blood) reached a new frenzy this week as Warner Brothers Television finally issued its notice of termination of the actor.
Jon Hyman, over at the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog, had a great post earlier today about this and
In broad terms, the First Amendment prohibits public employers from retaliating against employees who engage in "protected speech". (Connecticut has a statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-51q that purports to apply the First Amendment to private employers too.) But proving these cases remains difficult for employees.
And even victories may later end up as