Real World Impact: The Connecticut Appellate Court has ruled that, as a matter of law, full-time remote work is not a reasonable accommodation if it eliminates an essential function of an employee's job that must be performed in person.
Background
Marita Castelino was hired as an administrative assistant to Attorney Cynthia Smith, head of the defendant Whitman, Breed, Abbott, and Morgan, LLC's real estate practice group. Castelino began working on May 29, 2020, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. The real estate practice group continued to work from the office on a regular basis despite the COVID pandemic. Castelino was hired to work in a hybrid in-person/remote position. Her in-person job responsibilities included maintaining physical files, scanning client documents, and meeting with clients to sign and notarize documents for real estate closings. Castelino claimed that these responsibilities took at most half of her time spent in person, and the other half of her in-person time was spent performing personal errands for Smith. On June 11, 2020, Castelino allegedly discovered a COVID testing site in the building that housed the defendant law firm. At no time prior to this alleged discovery did Castelino, an immunocompromised person, express concerns about contracting COVID. Thereafter, Castelino requested to work remotely on an exclusive basis. The request was denied because in-person work was an essential job function.
Meanwhile, from the outset Castelino repeatedly committed errors in her work. She was terminated on July 27, 2020, due to performance.
Following her termination, Castelino initiated legal proceedings alleging she was denied a reasonable accommodation – exclusively remote work – and was terminated because of her disability and in retaliation for seeking an accommodation in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. In relevant part, the trial court held that in-person work was an essential function of Castelino's job and, therefore, the request to work exclusively on a remote basis was not, as a matter of law, a reasonable accommodation. Castelino appealed.
Connecticut Appellate Court Decision
On appeal, Castelino argued that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether her request for exclusively remote work eliminated an essential function of her position. Although in her deposition Castelino described work-related tasks that required her to be present in person at the office, she argued on appeal that she did not have to be present in person except to run personal errands for Smith and, therefore, being present at work was not an essential job function. She further argued that any work-related tasks that were required to be performed in person could be shifted to someone else. The Appellate Court flatly rejected her claims.
Relying on Second Circuit law, the Castelino court explained that "whether a specific job has essential functions that require in person work involves a 'case-specific inquiry.'" Essential functions include "the fundamental duties to be performed in the position in question, but not functions that are merely marginal." In Tafolla v. Heilig, the Second Circuit held that courts "must give considerable deference to an employer's judgment regarding what functions are essential for service in a particular position." Courts look at both how an employer describes a job and how the job is performed in practice.
While disputing the exact amount of in-person work required, Castelino agreed, and the Appellate Court found it undisputed, that her job required "some measure of in person work" beyond merely performing personal errands for Smith. More specifically, Castelino conceded that she was required to be in the office "as needed" to perform tasks such as obtaining "ink signatures," notarizing documents, accepting documents from clients, or working on physical files. The court found this sufficient to determine that Castelino's presence in the office was an essential function of her job.
Therefore, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial court and held that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether in-person work was an essential function of Castelino's job. Given that in-person work was an essential job function for Castelino, the Appellate Court held that her request to work 100% remotely was not a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law.
The Bottom Line
In a first-of-its-kind decision in Connecticut, Castelino provides clarity to employers in a post-pandemic world where requests to work remotely as an accommodation have become commonplace. Castelino holds definitively that Connecticut employers are not required to grant requests for exclusively remote work if at least "some measure" of in-person work is an essential function of a job. While a job's essential functions are determined on a case-by-case basis, as demonstrated by Castelino, an employer's judgment on what constitutes an "essential function" – as determined by many factors, including what is in the job description and what was communicated to the employee – is given great deference. This decision does not give employers a free pass to decline all requests from disabled employees to work remotely. Rather, each request to work remotely as a reasonable accommodation should be evaluated on an individual basis, but where that analysis reveals that a job requires in-person duties, under Castelino, such a request can be denied without facing legal liability.
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.
