Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s reversal of a trial court judgment in a housing-discrimination action involving a request to accommodate two emotional support dogs. The court held that the trial court found only that Wendy Pizzoferrato was regarded as having a mental disability and did not implicitly find that she had a record of such a disability. Because a person regarded as having a disability was not entitled to the requested accommodation under the applicable statute, the court vacated the Appellate Court’s discussion of the necessity standard.
Holdings
- The Appellate Court incorrectly inferred that the trial court found Wendy had a record of a mental disability. The trial court expressly found only that Wendy was regarded as having a disability, and a finding that she had a record of a disability was an independent alternative basis rather than a subsidiary finding necessary to support the judgment.
- Under the circumstances of this case, and because the commission conceded the point, a person who is only regarded as having a disability is not entitled to a reasonable accommodation and cannot establish the failure-to-accommodate claim at issue.
- The Appellate Court's discussion of the record-of-disability prong and the legal standard for determining when an accommodation is necessary was vacated because those issues were not necessary to the disposition and could have legal consequences if left in place.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Appellate Court correctly construed the trial court's judgment as implicitly finding that Wendy had a record of a mental disability under General Statutes § 46a-51 (20).
- Whether a person who is only regarded as having a disability may establish a failure-to-accommodate claim under Connecticut's fair-housing laws.
- Whether the Appellate Court's discussion of the legal standard for determining whether an accommodation is necessary under General Statutes § 46a-64c (a) (6) should remain in effect.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (7)
- Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Pizzoferrato v. Mansions, LLC, 231 Conn. App. 121, 332 A.3d 933 (2025)(followed in result; reasoning vacated in part)
- Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P. v. Bridgeport, 320 Conn. 332, 355, 133 A.3d 402 (2016)(followed)
- O'Brien v. O'Brien, 326 Conn. 81, 113-14, 161 A.3d 1236 (2017)(distinguished)
- DeCicco v. Dynata, LLC, 354 Conn. 51, 58-59, 349 A.3d 7 (2026)(followed)
- Matarese v. Archstone Pentagon City, 795 F. Supp. 2d 402, 434 (E.D. Va. 2011), aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom. Matarese v. Archstone Communities, LLC, 468 Fed. Appx. 283 (4th Cir. 2012)(followed for quoted principle)
- Vorchheimer v. Philadelphian Owners Assn., 903 F.3d 100, 107 (3d Cir. 2018)(not reached)
- State v. Boyle, 287 Conn. 478, 487-90, 949 A.2d 460 (2008)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…