The Connecticut Court of Appeals recently ruled that the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) does not permit a cause of action for disability discrimination by an association.
Quick Hit
The Connecticut Court of Appeals held that the plain meaning of CFEPA does not include disability discrimination claims brought by groups. The Court distinguished CFEPA from the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, which allows for disability discrimination claims brought by groups.
On June 18, 2024, the Connecticut Court of Appeals upheld the court’s decision in DeMarco v. Charter Oak Temple Restoration Association that the “clear and unequivocal” language of the CFEPA did not permit the association to claim discrimination.
background
The decision concerned the dismissal of a former employee who had returned to work after a leave of absence following the birth of her son and suffered from a serious medical condition that made her disabled as defined by the CFEPA. The former employee sued, arguing that her dismissal was “because of her involvement with a disabled person (in this case her son)” in violation of the CFEPA.
A provision of the CFEPA, Connecticut General Statutes 46a-60(b)(1), prohibits employers from firing an individual “because of that individual’s race, color, religious creed, age, sex, gender identity or expression, marital status, national origin, ancestry, or current or past mental, intellectual, learning, or physical disability (including, but not limited to, blindness, status as a veteran, or status as a victim of domestic violence)” (emphasis added).
Prohibition of group discrimination
A three-judge panel of the Connecticut Court of Appeals found that while § 46a-60(b)(1) protects disabled employees from being fired because of their disability, “§ 46a-60(b)(1), by its clear and unambiguous language, does not prohibit disability discrimination by association.” Specifically, the court stated that “the use of the word ‘personal’ as a possessive noun accompanying ‘disability’ makes it clear that the ‘disability’ belongs to the employee.”
The Court noted that Congress’ inclusion of group discrimination in the context of another statute prohibiting housing discrimination “further supports the conclusion that if Congress intended to include group disability discrimination within CFEPA’s jurisdiction, it would have expressly communicated that intent.”
The Court also distinguished CFEPA from the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which expressly prohibits employers from “excluding or denying equal employment or benefits to a qualified individual because of a known disability of an individual known to be related or connected to the qualified individual.”
Moreover, the Court found it significant that the Connecticut Legislature had failed to adopt similar group discrimination language as contained in the ADA, even though it had amended CFEPA multiple times since the ADA was passed in 1990. “This strongly suggests that Congress intended to maintain a distinction between CFEPA and the ADA, and that its decision not to include group discrimination within the scope of CFEPA was deliberate,” the Court stated.
Notably, the Court considered, but was not persuaded by, the argument that the CFEPA should be interpreted broadly to take into account the “relief objectives” of dismissed employees. [Connecticut’s] The Court concluded that while the Act sets out “a laudable public policy to eliminate employment-related discrimination,” this goal does not mean that courts can ignore “the Legislature’s clearly expressed intent.”
“While the CFEPA is remedial in nature and therefore must be interpreted to accomplish, to the extent reasonably possible, the beneficial purpose of eliminating employment-related discrimination, that principle of statutory construction does not permit this Court to ignore the clear language of § 46a-60(b)(1) and the limitations that that language places on the achievement of that purpose,” the court stated.
Key Takeaways
The Connecticut Court of Appeals’ decision makes clear that CFEPA does not give rise to group discrimination claims, particularly in the context of disability-based discrimination claims. The decision is based on the Court’s analysis of the plain meaning of CFEPA, and in particular its refusal to interpret the statute broadly despite its overall remedial purpose. The decision further highlights “long-standing differences” between CFEPA and the federal ADA, which allows for group discrimination claims based on the disability of another nearby individual.