Connecticut Appellate Court Upholds Employer’s Right to Require In-Office Work

Quick Hits

• The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for a law firm employer, finding that in-person work was an essential function of the plaintiff’s legal assistant position.
• The plaintiff, who had diabetes and asthma, requested to work exclusively from home due to COVID-19 concerns. The employer denied the request but allowed some remote work on specific days.
• The court held that the requested accommodation—full-time remote work—was not reasonable because it would eliminate essential job functions that required physical presence in the office.
• The decision underscores the importance of clearly defining essential job functions and consistently communicating expectations regarding remote and in-person work.

Background

Marita Tammy Castelino was hired in May 2020 as an administrative assistant in the real estate practice group at Whitman, Breed, Abbott & Morgan, LLC, a Connecticut law firm. Although some practice groups at the firm had shifted to remote work during the pandemic, the real estate group continued to require regular in-office attendance due to the nature of its work, which included maintaining physical files, scanning documents, and meeting with clients for signatures and notarizations.

Shortly after starting, Castelino—who has diabetes and asthma—expressed concerns about COVID-19 exposure and requested to work exclusively from home. The firm denied her request but permitted her to work remotely on certain days. Castelino’s employment was terminated less than two months later, with the firm citing performance deficiencies.

Castelino filed suit, alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA). She argued that her job could be performed remotely and that the firm’s refusal to allow full-time remote work was discriminatory.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer, emphasizing several key points. Most importantly, the court found that in-person work was an essential function of Castelino’s position. Evidence showed that tasks such as maintaining physical files, scanning documents, and obtaining ink signatures and notarizations for real estate closings required physical presence in the office. Castelino’s own deposition testimony acknowledged that some in-office work was necessary.

The court recognized that an accommodation is not reasonable if it eliminates an essential job function. Castelino’s request to work entirely remotely would have excused her from performing tasks that the court deemed fundamental to her role. The court concluded that there was no genuine dispute as to whether in-office work was essential, and thus Castelino could not establish that she was qualified for the position with her requested accommodation. The court also found no evidence that the employer’s stated reason for employment termination—performance issues—was a pretext for discrimination or retaliation.

Key Takeaways for Employers

The Castelino decision provides several important takeaways for employers:

Defining and Documenting Essential Functions: Employers may want to clearly identify and document the essential functions of each position, including any requirements for in-person work. Written job descriptions and consistent communication with employees are critical.

Case-by-Case Assessment: Employers may want to carefully assess requests for remote work as a disability accommodation on an individual basis, with careful consideration of whether in-person attendance is truly essential to the role.

Interactive Process: While employers are not required to eliminate essential job functions, engaging in a good-faith interactive process to explore reasonable accommodations can help both employers and the employees who are seeking accommodations.

Employers may want to review their job descriptions, accommodation policies, and remote work protocols to ensure they are aligned with current legal standards and operational needs. The Castelino ruling reinforces that while remote work may be feasible for some positions, it is not a required accommodation if it would prevent an employee from performing essential job duties.

Ogletree Deakins’ Stamford office will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Connecticut, Leaves of Absence, and Return to Work blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts