Langello v. West Haven Board of Education
142 Conn. App. 248
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Langello, a tenured elementary instrumental music teacher in West Haven, appealed a board of education termination under §10-151 (d).
- The board terminated for disability and other due and sufficient cause after a comprehensive hearing.
- The board conceded FEPA considerations apply and that reasonable accommodations were required under the ADA.
- Hearing officer found the plaintiff disabled, with significant cognitive/memory deficits, and unable to perform essential functions even with paraprofessional aid.
- Paraprofessional assistance from 1996–2009 involved non-teaching tasks; questions arose about teaching duties and certification rules.
- Trial court affirmed the board’s decision; the plaintiff challenges the interpretation and application of FEPA alongside the Teacher Tenure Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FEPA protections apply to a tenured teacher terminated under §10-151 (d) for disability | Langello argues FEPA governs the termination and requires accommodation | Board contends FEPA and ADA interplay mandates accommodation but may justify termination when unable to perform functions | FEPA protections apply to §10-151 (d) disability terminations |
| Whether the board provided reasonable accommodations and termination was appropriate | Langello argues accommodation sufficed to perform essential functions | Board contends accommodation could not overcome disability | Termination supported where plaintiff unable to perform essential functions even with accommodation |
| What framework governs FEPA discrimination claim in this context (mixed motive/adequate framework) | Langello asserts FEPA framework should apply to disability discrimination | Board asserts proper burden under FEPA/ADA and §10-151 with accommodation | Court analyzes under FEPA/ADA framework; burdens of production/persuasion applied accordingly |
| Whether board complied with UAPA provisions and procedural requirements | Langello argues procedural missteps and misapplication of statute | Board notes statutory scheme directs review under §4-183 | Board complied with statutory review framework; no reversible procedural error |
| Whether the evidence supports that plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions with accommodation | Langello contends paraprofessional aid adequately addressed essential duties | Board relies on neuropsychological and medical evidence showing disability precluding essential functions | Evidence supports disability and inability to perform essential functions with accommodation |
Key Cases Cited
- Curry v. Goodman, 286 Conn. 390 (2008) (FEPA/ADA interaction; employer must accommodate unless undue hardship)
- Beason v. United Technologies Corp., 337 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 2003) (ADA vs FEPA differences; federal standards inform state interpretation)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (mixed-motive/pnee framework; burdens of production)
- Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (McDonnell Douglas-Burdine framework for discrimination cases)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
- Levy v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 236 Conn. 96 (1996) (state FEPA analysis and burdens of proof)
- Tomick v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 Conn. App. 589 (2012) (appellate review of FEPA/discrimination frameworks)
- Borkowski v. Valley Central School District, 63 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1995) (paraprofessional aid and essential functions context)
- Chasse v. Computer Sciences Corp., 453 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D. Conn. 2006) (FEPA/ADA comparative analysis)