naremove: Employers can take adverse action if disabled employees or members of other protected categories are not subordinated.
A federal district court in Connecticut rules disability and sex discrimination and disobedience allegations brought by a campsite seasonal worker who was fired after being involved in a public altercation and slapping his supervisor’s hand. A summary judgment was rendered against
Plaintiff worked as a seasonal temporary employee during his employer’s camping season from 2012 to 2016 and returned in 2019 after a two-year hiatus. He hires her to help with bingo, design medals and certificates, and schedule employee and camper activities.
Plaintiff had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder. The manager who contacted her to return to her job in 2019 knew that her plaintiff had been diagnosed with PTSD and depression.
The plaintiff alleges several overnight stays related to her disability, including asking for time off for medical and treatment appointments and telling her manager that she “has a problem being around large groups of people.” requested facilities. Plaintiff admitted that she was never promised that she could avoid working with others entirely.
In April 2019, plaintiff began working at the campground and fulfilled the above responsibilities. Additionally, I found an employee at the campsite and called out to “bingo around a large crowd.” [she] I didn’t want to. ”
During the 2019 camp season, plaintiffs were involved in four oral arguments. In her fourth altercation, she slapped her boss’s hand and proceeded to slap her own face.
Plaintiff took a hiatus after this incident and her employment ended when she returned. Decided to terminate Plaintiff’s employment. The General Manager was unaware of Plaintiff’s disability when he made the decision.
The plaintiff’s dismissal coincided with a male employee forcibly dismissing a customer who was filming him addressing a noise complaint by snatching his mobile phone from his hand.
Plaintiffs allege disability discrimination and failure to respond under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), as well as sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. McDonnell Douglas A load balancing framework.
The court relied on the Second Circuit’s summary order in granting summary judgment on plaintiffs’ disability discrimination claims under the ADA and CFEPA. The court explained that the ADA and CFEPA employ different causal criteria to prove the discriminatory intent necessary to establish prima facie evidence.
ADA applies a “but-for” causal criterion, while CFEPA employs a more easily satisfied “motivator” test. Nevertheless, the court found that plaintiff established prima facie evidence under both standards because she did not show that the manager who made the decision to terminate her employment knew about her disability. I have recognized that I have failed to do so.
Summary judgment was also granted on plaintiffs’ sex discrimination claim because plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie evidence under Title VII. The court ruled that there was no evidence to support a finding that men in similar circumstances would be treated differently. women have not been fired, and employers used physical force to fire male employees.
The court also granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for insubordination. The court found that the essential function of plaintiff’s job was to work with a small group of people. Plaintiff’s lodging request was to avoid large groups, not small groups, and the court found that plaintiff’s sister was a small group. He pointed out that he was in the group.
Kunkel v. Strawberry Park Resort Campground Inc.D. Conn., No. 23:20-cv-01906 (November 2, 2022).
Maria C.aCeres Bonneau Attorney at Duane Morris LLP in New York City.