Appellate Court Rejects Associational Discrimination Claim Under State Law

SG
Shipman & Goodwin LLP

Contributor

Shipman & Goodwin’s value lies in our commitment -- to our clients, to the profession and to the community. We have one goal: to help our clients achieve their goals. How we accomplish it is simple: we devote our considerable experience and depth of knowledge to understand each client’s unique needs, business and industry, and then we develop solutions to meet those needs. Clients turn to us when they need a trusted advisor. With our invaluable awareness of each client’s challenges, we can counsel them at every step -- to keep their operations running smoothly, help them navigate complex business transactions, position them for future growth, or resolve business disputes. The success of our clients is of primary importance to us and our attorneys invest meaningful time getting to know the client's business and are skilled in the practice areas and industry sectors critical to that success. With more than 175 attorneys in offices throughout Connecticut, New York and in Washington, DC, we serve the needs of
Does the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) include claims of associational discrimination based on an employee's association with a disabled individual?
United States Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Listen to this post

Does the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) include claims of associational discrimination based on an employee's association with a disabled individual?

That was the issue before the Connecticut Appellate Court in Demarco v. Charter Oak Temple Restoration Assn., Inc. decided yesterday.

The Court held that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 (b) (1) of CFEPA, which prohibits employment discrimination based on physical disability, does not protect individuals associated with disabled persons.

James Demarco, the plaintiff, was employed by the Charter Oak Temple Restoration Association, Inc., and took a leave of absence to care for his newborn son, who had serious medical conditions. Upon returning, he was terminated, and the employer cited concerns about his son's illness affecting Demarco's job performance. Demarco claimed this termination was discriminatory under CFEPA due to his association with his disabled son.

The trial court struck Demarco's revised complaint, ruling that CFEPA's language does not support claims of associational discrimination. The appellate court, led by Chief Judge Bright and Judges Alvord and Palmer, affirmed this decision. The court emphasized that CFEPA's text is clear in its protections for individuals with their own disabilities and does not extend to those associated with disabled individuals.

The court underscored that while CFEPA is remedial and aims to eliminate discrimination, its statutory language is unambiguous and does not cover associational discrimination. Therefore, any expansion of these protections would require legislative action, not judicial interpretation.

This decision answers a question that had been lingering under current Connecticut law, but that's not the end of the story for employers because the EEOC has opined that the ADA encompasses such claims on a federal law.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More