Monts v. Board of Education
206 Conn. App. 106
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Monts was rehired by Hartford Board of Education in Aug. 2015 to a position subject to a 120 working‑day probationary period after a June 2015 termination.
- On Sept. 1, 2015, Monts suffered a work injury (knee and lower back), reported it, received care, was placed on modified duty, then on workers’ compensation leave for absences through November 2015.
- The Board had a long‑standing policy not to run FMLA leave concurrently with workers’ compensation leave; Monts did not request FMLA and the Board classified her absences as workers’ compensation leave.
- Monts received negative performance evaluations in Jan. and Feb. 2016 based solely on on‑the‑job performance and was terminated for poor performance on Mar. 2, 2016 while still in probation.
- Monts sued asserting CFEPA disability discrimination/retaliation, workers’ compensation retaliation, and FMLA interference and retaliation; the trial court declined to instruct the jury on FMLA interference (no evidence of an FMLA request), admitted a coworker’s letter under the business‑records exception, and excluded several post‑termination medical records; the jury found for the Board and judgment was entered for the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should have charged the jury on FMLA interference | Monts contended evidence supported an FMLA interference instruction and that employer intent is not required | Board argued there was no evidence Monts requested FMLA and its nonconcurrent leave policy did not harm her | Court affirmed refusal to charge: no evidence of an FMLA request/notice; policy benefitted employees; no prejudice shown |
| Admissibility of coworker’s letter under business‑records hearsay exception | Monts argued Newton did not prepare the letter in the regular course of her own business duties | Board argued the letter was part of the employer’s regular procedure to evaluate probationary employees | Court affirmed admission: §8‑4(a) focuses on the business’s regular practice; admission harmless even if erroneous because Newton testified to the same matters |
| Exclusion of post‑termination medical records offered to prove disability under CFEPA | Monts argued these records showed a disability | Board argued the records lacked probative value as they describe condition months after termination | Court affirmed exclusion: records lacked relevance to condition at time of discharge and exclusion was within trial court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Cendant Corp. v. Commissioner of Labor, 276 Conn. 16 (Conn. 2005) (adopts burden‑shifting framework for FMLA interference claims)
- Musorofiti v. Vlcek, 65 Conn. App. 365 (Conn. App. 2001) (standard for directed verdict review)
- Al‑Janet, LLC v. B & B Home Improvements, LLC, 101 Conn. App. 836 (Conn. App. 2007) (jury instructions confined to matters supported by evidence)
- Tomick v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 Conn. App. 589 (Conn. App. 2012) (trial court’s broad discretion on admissibility of evidence)
- In re Tayler F., 111 Conn. App. 28 (Conn. App. 2008) (erroneous business‑records admission may be harmless where witness testified to same facts)
- Boretti v. Panacea Co., 67 Conn. App. 223 (Conn. App. 2001) (relevance standard and trial court’s discretion on probative value)