Thomson v. Dept. of Social Services
169 A.3d 256
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Thomson worked for the Dept. of Social Services as a clerical assistant since 1987 and has severe chronic asthma causing intermittent flare-ups requiring time off.
- By January 2013 she was ineligible for FMLA; she and HR agreed she could use other leave types as needed.
- On Jan. 30, 2013 Thomson provided a medical certificate indicating a reduced or intermittent schedule but with no date for full-time return.
- Thomson left a note Feb. 6 saying she would begin medical leave on Feb. 7 for "over thirty days depending on my lung condition," provided phone/address, and left short‑term disability paperwork showing "ongoing" or "until reevaluated."
- HR (Owens) mailed certified notice that Thomson was ineligible for FMLA, had not supplied required medical documentation, and must return or supply a certificate by Feb. 21 or be deemed resigned; Thomson did not receive the letters until Feb. 24 and did not respond until Feb. 25.
- Thomson sued under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act alleging failure to provide a reasonable accommodation; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Department, concluding Thomson failed to prove a prima facie case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomson established a prima facie ADA/CFEPA reasonable accommodation claim | Thomson: her request for medical leave was a reasonable accommodation that would allow her to perform essential job functions | Dept.: request was indefinite; not reasonable; Thomson failed to cooperate in interactive process | Court: Granted summary judgment for Dept.; leave request was indefinite and not a reasonable accommodation; plaintiff failed prima facie burden |
| Whether indefinite leave is a reasonable accommodation | Thomson: leave needed until recovery; qualifies as accommodation | Dept.: not required to hold position open indefinitely | Court: Indefinite leave is not reasonable as a matter of law; employer need not wait indefinitely |
| Whether employer failed to engage in interactive process | Thomson: employer should have explained difficulty and sought approximate return date from physician | Dept.: attempted to engage via calls and letters; plaintiff did not respond | Court: Dept. attempted interactive process but plaintiff’s lack of timely response prevented meaningful engagement |
| Whether plaintiff showed ability to perform essential functions with accommodation | Thomson: leave would enable eventual performance | Dept.: no timeframe shown to demonstrate return or ability to perform | Court: Plaintiff did not show accommodation would enable performance at or around time requested; element not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc., 286 Conn. 390 (Connecticut 2008) (standards for reasonable accommodation and summary judgment review)
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., 585 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2009) (plaintiff bears burden to propose accommodation enabling performance)
- Myers v. Hose, 50 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 1995) (reasonable accommodation must presently or imminently enable performance; employer need not wait indefinitely)
- Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000) (employer not required to hold position open indefinitely during recovery)
- Mitchell v. Washingtonville Cent. Sch. Dist., 190 F.3d 1 (2d Cir. 1999) (indefinite leave not required as reasonable accommodation)
- Rogers v. Int’l Marine Terminals, Inc., 87 F.3d 755 (5th Cir. 1996) (indefinite leave is unreasonable)
- Green v. Cellco P’ship, 218 F. Supp. 3d 157 (D. Conn. 2016) (medical leave can be an accommodation, but not indefinitely)
- Graves v. Finch Pruyn & Co., 457 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2006) (burden on plaintiff to show accommodation would enable performance)
- Langello v. West Haven Bd. of Ed., 142 Conn. App. 248 (Conn. App. 2013) (state antidiscrimination claims analyzed under ADA standards)