Contact the experienced employment law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com
In the case of Thibodeau v. Design Group One Architects, an employee brought an action based on wrongful termination. The trial court granted her employer's motion for summary judgment as the employer had less than three employees. Under the Fair Employment Practices Act , employers with three or more employees are prohibited from discriminating against their employees on the basis of sex, including discrimination related to pregnancy. The employee appealed to the Appellate Court (Connecticut) which reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings based on public policy. The employer appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
The employee, who was an at-will employee, sued the employer, claiming that she had been terminated because of her pregnancy. The supreme court held that although it acknowledged there existed a general public policy in Connecticut to eliminate all forms of invidious discrimination, including sex discrimination, it disagreed with the lower appellate court that the employee therefore was entitled to maintain a discriminatory discharge claim against the employer. The supreme court stated the exemption contained in the Fair Employment Practices Act for employers with fewer than three employees was, itself, an expression of public policy that could not be separated from the policy reflected in the Act's ban on discriminatory employment practices. Because the Act reflected an unambiguous policy determination by the legislature that employers with fewer than three employees were not to be subject to liability for sex discrimination, including pregnancy-related discrimination, a common-law claim for wrongful discharge on the basis of pregnancy did not lie against the employer.
The appellate court was reversed and judgment was directed in favor of the employer. “The legislature may wish to revisit its policy judgment regarding small employers” explained the court. “We, however, are not free to ignore the clear expression of public policy embodied in the statutory exemption currently afforded small employers under the act. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that the plaintiff has failed to state a legally cognizable claim against the defendant.”
If you feel you have been mistreated by your employer or in your place of employment and 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: Thibodeau v. Design Group One Architects, LLC, 260 Conn. 691, 802 A.2d 731, 2002 Conn. LEXIS 249, 89 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 271, 18 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1442 (Conn. 2002)
