Cendant Corp. v. Commissioner of Labor, 276 Conn. 16

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court considered the framework for analyzing an employee’s claim that an employer interfered with the employee’s right to reinstatement under the Connecticut Family and Medical Leave Law. The court adopted the majority federal approach, under which an employee need not prove employer intent, while the employer bears the burden of showing that the employee would not have retained the position absent the leave. The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Cendant Corporation’s appeal from the commissioner of labor’s decision.

Holdings

1. Connecticut adopts the framework used by the majority of federal courts for FMLA interference claims. An employee must initially show that the employer denied a statutory right and that the denial was connected in part to the employee's protected leave; once that showing is made, the employer may avoid liability by proving that the employee would have been terminated or otherwise not employed when reinstatement was requested even if the employee had not taken leave.
2. An employee asserting interference with the right to reinstatement need not prove that the employer acted with discriminatory or retaliatory intent. The term strict liability describes the irrelevance of employer intent, not liability regardless of whether the employer had a legitimate reason that would independently have resulted in termination.
3. The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework does not apply to interference claims under Connecticut's Family and Medical Leave Law.
4. Substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's findings that Persky's leave was causally connected to the denial of reinstatement and that she would have retained her position had she not taken leave.

Questions Presented

1. What analytical framework governs an employee's claim that an employer interfered with the employee's right to reinstatement under Connecticut's Family and Medical Leave Law?
2. Whether an employee asserting an interference claim must prove the employer's intent or whether liability may attach without proof of intent.
3. Whether the employer or employee bears the ultimate burden of proving that the employee would have been terminated even if the employee had not taken leave.
4. Whether the trial court properly determined that substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's findings of a causal connection between Persky's leave and the denial of reinstatement and that Persky would have retained her position absent the leave.

Disposition

affirmed