Contact the experienced employment law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 orJMaya@Mayalaw.com
In the case of Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc., an employee challenged summary judgment rendered by the Superior Court in favor of his former employer, on the employee's claims that the employer discriminated against him because of his disability in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. The case was transferred to the supreme court. In order to survive a motion for summary judgment on his claim, the employee must produce enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the statute, (2) he was able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation, and (3) the defendant, despite knowing of the plaintiff's disability, did not reasonably accommodate it. If the employee has made such a showing, the burden shifts to the employer to show that such an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on its business.
The employee claimed the trial court improperly concluded that he had not met his burden of proving that he was a qualified person with a disability capable of performing the essential functions of his job in a liquor warehouse. The supreme court first found that the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act required employers to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee's disability. Under this framework, the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment because materials submitted by both parties revealed genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the employee could perform the essential functions of his position. A functional capacity evaluation conflicted with letters from physicians as to whether the employee could perform the "split line" functions at the warehouse. This type of evidentiary dispute was inappropriate for resolution on summary judgment. Accordingly, the trial court improperly granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on the employee's reasonable accommodation claim. In addition, the employee's disparate treatment claim should have survived summary judgment. The employee made a showing as to all three elements required to survive summary judgment.
The judgment was reversed. “In the present case, the [employee] made a showing as to all three elements. It is undisputed that he is disabled within the meaning of the Connecticut Fair Trade Practices Act. As we noted . . . he has stated a case that he could perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation” said the court. “Finally, it is undisputed that the [employee’s] known disability was the sole reason for his discharge, as the [employer] has proffered no evidence that there was any other legitimate basis for its decision.”
If you feel you would like to explore your employment law options, contact the experienced employment law attorneys today at 203-221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com. We have the experience and knowledge you need at this critical juncture. We serve clients in both New York and Connecticut including New Canaan, Bridgeport, White Plains, and Darien.
Source: Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc., 286 Conn. 390, 944 A.2d 925, 2008 Conn. LEXIS 130, 20 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 810, 13 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P13-101 (Conn. 2008)
