Perceived Disability Now Recognized Under Connecticut Law

calendar for WWFH inviteOn Monday December 8, 2014, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the case of Mireille Derosiers v. Diageo North America, Inc. et al. holding that the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (the state counterpart to federal employment discrimination statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act) prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals whom they perceive as being physically disabled, even though the individual may not actually be disabled at all. Ms. Derosiers was employed by Diageo as a packaging buyer, and in that role, was responsible for repackaging Diageo’s products (beer, wine and spirits).  In the months leading to her termination, she received several unfavorable performance evaluations from her supervisor and was placed on a ninety day performance improvement plan.  Ms. Derosiers alleged that she informed her supervisor that she would need to take a medical leave of absence to undergo surgery for a tumor on her right shoulder, and the following day she was terminated for “performance reasons.”  She then brought suit alleging disability discrimination based on her physical disability and/or perceived physical disability. Both the trial court and appellate court rejected her perceived physical disability claim, holding that while such a claim is expressly permissible under the ADA, it is not provided for under Connecticut law. Indeed, the Connecticut statute is silent on this issue.  It states “It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section: (1) For an employer … to discharge from employment any individual …because of the individual’s … present or past history of mental disability, intellectual disability, learning disability or physical disability ….” And “physical disability” is defined as “a chronic physical handicap, infirmity or impairment.”  (In contrast, the ADA specifically prohibits discrimination against employees who are “regarded as” disabled.) The Supreme Court reasoned that an employee who is rumored to have an impairment and is treated unfairly as a result should be entitled to the same legal recourse as the employee who, in fact, does have an impairment, because the illegal animus is the same. While interesting, this case should have little impact on employers’ practices or handbook policies because the ADA has always prohibited this type of discrimination.  Only employers with fewer than 15 employees, who are not subject to the ADA but are covered by CFEPA, might have believed that discrimination based on a “perceived disability” was permissible.  But  since 1989, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) has interpreted Connecticut’s statute as providing the same protections as the ADA in this regard.  This case simply legitimizes the CHRO’s position.

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Education Law Notes

For What It May Be Worth

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page