Engaging in the interactive process is an important — and sometimes overlooked — part of an employer’s response to a request for a reasonable accommodation under state and federal law.
Sometimes it’s hard to appreciate how things have changed since the pandemic hit and the challenges we face going forward.
I was thinking about all those little things over the weekend when I put pocket change in my little “change jar” that I keep in my bedroom.
You see, prior to the pandemic, at the…
Earlier this week, my colleague Bradley Harper and I did a post our sister blog site, Employment Law Letter, on a recent Connecticut Appellate Court case discussing the level of proof needed by an employee to win a discrimination case.
If you haven’t read it yet, you can click here.
The key line in the…
It’s Wednesday afternoon and you get an email from a service that receives lawsuits on your behalf.
“Congratulations! You are the recipient of a new lawsuit!”
No, it doesn’t really say that.
Rather, it’ll basically attach a copy of the lawsuit and remind you that the clock is ticking for a response.
It might as…
Let’s take a test.
In the last ten years or so, the number of charges of discrimination and retaliation filed at the EEOC has done WHAT?
a) Gone up by 40 percent
b) Gone up by 15 percent
c) Stayed relatively flat
d) Gone down by 15 percent
e) Gone down by 40 percent…
Today I want to talk about a housing discrimination claim. But wait! It has significant relevance to employment discrimination claims so bear with me for a second.
As an additional incentive, if you’ve been following the Marvel movies, this case will ALSO have elements of a multi-verse with multiple versions of the CHRO in play, so consider this case to be “Loki” for legal geeks. (If you don’t understand, your kids will.)
Ok, back to the law.
The story first starts in 2012 when the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld an award of $95,000 in noneconomic damages to an employee in an harassment claim, even though the employee did not offer any expert or medical testimony on the subject and provided very little to no evidence on it, according to the court’s opinion.
The case, Patino v. Birken Mfg, has often been cited for the proposition that noneconomic damages will not be overturned unless they are excessive or shocking. The Court’s decision cited several other cases to compare the verdicts in those cases with that one. These types of cases are also what is known as “garden variety” emotional distress damages.
Flash forward to 2015 and a case of housing discrimination filed at the CHRO. The condominium never appeared in the case to defend itself, which resulted in a default judgment. A hearing in damages was then held. At the hearing, the CHRO requested $75,000 in noneconomic damages on behalf of the individual. However, the referee awarded $15,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress. Victory and case closed, right?
Nope. Then things get interesting. The CHRO appealed the decision of its own referee, contending the damages were insufficient. The Superior Court remanded the case for further decision and on remand, the referee did not change the damages award. The CHRO then appealed again to the Superior Court which affirmed the decision.
Which led to an appeal to the Connecticut Appellate with the CHRO representing the CHRO (Plaintiff) and the CHRO representing the CHRO (Defendant).
(Don’t try to think too much about it; your head will spin but you can read footnote 1 for an explanation where the court notes “The present case thus presents us with the unusual situation of both parties on appeal advocating for the same
interests; specifically, asking this court to reverse the decision of the Superior Court, vacate the referee’s award of damages and remand the case for a new calculation of damages.”)
For good measure, the State of Connecticut filed a brief as amicus curiae. (That’s a lot of tax dollars hard at work, as they say.)
On appeal in CHRO v. Cantillon, both versions of the CHRO asked the court to reverse, claiming a misapplication of prior case law. Both argued that Patino stands for the proposition that in “garden variety” emotional distress claims, “there is a presumptive monetary range of damages between $30,000 and $125,000.”…
In a decision released on Tuesday, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of a state law gender discrimination claim on the grounds that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
The procedural background of Fernandez v. Mac Motors, Inc. illustrates an important mechanism for employers to use to avoid fighting a…
Today, I bring back one of my favorite recurring features – my conversations with employee-side attorney Nina Pirrotti.
As we’ve moved our conversations (“The Dialogue”) from written to virtual format, we still find the effects on employment law by the pandemic to be wide-ranging. While vaccinations are welcome, the move to remote work has created…
Those were the days of Lady Gaga’s “Meat Dress”. You could also play “Angry Birds” on your new smartphone.
And discrimination complaints to the EEOC were about at their all-time high.
But over the last few years — and in particular, last year — discrimination and retaliation claims have been down.
A few years ago, I talked with some students about a report they were doing for NPR about how hairstyles and race have been historically intertwined.
Earlier this week, the Connecticut General Assembly gave final approval a bill that seeks to right some of these historical wrongs by making it illegal to discriminate in employment…