On August 20, 2013, the Connecticut Appellate Court reversed a trial court's decision that the East Haven Board of Education had violated the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) when it terminated a teacher's employment and failed to provide her with the specific accommodation that she had requested. In the case, Festa v. Board of Education, the court found that the Board of Education did not violate CFEPA because the teacher had caused the breakdown of the interactive process with the Board of Education.
As with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), a
Connecticut-based employee who requests an accommodation for a
disability under the CFEPA must engage in an interactive process
with her employer. In Festa, the plaintiff requested a
transfer from teaching third grade to teaching kindergarten because
of her unspecified "cognitive difficulties." The Board of
Education denied the request because it had no basis to conclude
that the plaintiff could be able to teach kindergarten but not
third grade, and it invited the plaintiff to discuss any other
accommodations that might aid her. In response, the plaintiff
demanded that the Board transfer her to a kindergarten position.
The Board again declined to do so, but again invited the plaintiff
to discuss any other accommodations. The plaintiff then failed to
report to work.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim because it found that
she had caused the breakdown in the interactive process. The court
concluded that the plaintiff had failed to provide information that
only she could provide, such as information from her physician
explaining how she could be able to teach kindergarten but not
third grade, or information about other accommodations that might
have been able to aid her. The court looked to a 1996 decision by
the Seventh Circuit, Beck v. University of Wisconsin Board of
Regents:
"Neither the ADA nor the regulations assign responsibility for
when the interactive process fails. No hard and fast rule will
suffice, because neither party should be able to cause a breakdown
in the process for the purpose of either avoiding or inflicting
liability. Rather, courts should look for signs of failure to
participate in good faith or failure by one of the parties to make
reasonable efforts to help the other party determine what specific
accommodations are necessary. A party that obstructs or
delays the interactive process is not acting in good faith. A party
that fails to communicate, by way of initiation or response, may
also be acting in bad faith. In essence, courts should attempt to
isolate the cause of the breakdown and then assign
responsibility." (Emphasis added.)
Connecticut employers should continue to stay apprised of what is
required under the ADA and CFEPA with respect to accommodating
their employees' disabilities. In addition, employers should
take note that the interactive process is a two-way street, and
should always keep the lines of communication open with employees
who request disability-related accommodations.
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.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.