224 Conn.App. 248
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Alyssa Bartolotta was employed as a preschool teaching assistant by Human Resources Agency of New Britain, Inc., and has a lifelong disability (epilepsy), which she disclosed only after suffering a seizure at work.
- Bartolotta received and acknowledged the employer’s drug-free workplace policy, which prohibited employees from being under the influence of drugs at work.
- Following her disclosure, the employer provided reasonable accommodations for her epilepsy, including developing seizure protocols and permitting flexibility for her recovery.
- Bartolotta requested that the school nurse store and administer her Valium, a request denied only in part because the school nurse could not administer medication to staff, but she was permitted to possess and self-administer Valium.
- In January 2019, Bartolotta admitted to reporting to work impaired after using her prescribed medical marijuana; coworkers reported concerns regarding her workplace behavior and apparent impairment.
- After an investigation and a negative marijuana drug test (but positive for Valium), Bartolotta was terminated for violation of workplace impairment policies. She sued on multiple counts: disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, wrongful termination, and unlawful drug testing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Termination due to medical marijuana use status (§21a-408p) | Fired because she was a qualifying patient for marijuana. | Termination was for impairment at work, not marijuana status. | No violation—termination was based on workplace impairment, not status as medical marijuana user. |
| Disability discrimination (§46a-60(b)(1)) | Terminated due to her disability (epilepsy). | Terminated for violation of drug-free policy; disability was accommodated. | No material issue—disability was not a motivating factor in termination. |
| Failure to accommodate disability | Requests for Valium storage/admin & possible marijuana accommodation were denied. | Valium accommodation was only partially denied; no marijuana accommodation was requested or required. | No violation—Valium storage/admin claim was time-barred; no compelled accommodation for marijuana. |
| Unlawful drug testing (§31-51x) | No reasonable suspicion existed to require a drug test. | Observed impairment and admissions provided reasonable suspicion. | No violation—reasonable suspicion existed at time of drug test. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucenti v. Laviero, 327 Conn. 764 (Connecticut summary judgment standard)
- Levy v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 236 Conn. 96 (mixed-motive vs. pretext analysis in discrimination cases)
- Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc., 286 Conn. 390 (reasonable accommodations under Connecticut law)
- Hartford Police Dept. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 347 Conn. 241 (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting in discrimination)
- Poulios v. Pfizer, Inc., 244 Conn. 598 (reasonable suspicion standard in workplace drug testing)