Oct 15 2025
Amanda DeMatteis: Hi, Josh.
Josh Goodbaum: Hi, Amanda. What are we talking about today?
DeMatteis: An update from the Connecticut Appellate Court about remote work and whether or not that’s a reasonable accommodation under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. What can you tell us?
Goodbaum: This is a major issue, Amanda, because a lot of folks with disabilities want to be able to work from home, and they want to have a legal right to do so. The Connecticut Appellate Court, though, said, “Not so fast. If you have a job that requires you to work in person as one of the essential functions of your job, then it’s never going to be a reasonable accommodation to be allowed to work from home. Why? Because under Connecticut law, a reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate the essential function of a position.”
The case is called Castelino v. Whitman Breed. It involves a woman who was an administrative assistant at a law firm, and a lot of her job could be conducted remotely. But some of her job needed to be conducted in the office, like opening physical files or moving paper around or finding pieces of paper. She asked for an accommodation to work from home exclusively. The employer said no. She sued and she lost, because the Connecticut Appellate Court, in an opinion written by retired Supreme Court Justice Richard Palmer, said, “You cannot have a reasonable accommodation if it eliminates an essential function of your job, and here, there is no dispute that at least one essential function of your job was doing things in person at the law firm.”
So, what can employees take away from this? If there’s a part of your job that you need to do that involves you being in-person at your office, you are not gonna have much luck asking for a reasonable accommodation that involves working entirely from home. That doesn’t mean the employer can’t allow you to work from home. They can eliminate essential functions if they want to, but they don’t have to. You do not have a legal right to work from home as an accommodation for your disability if that accommodation would mean that you cannot do one essential function of your job.
DeMatteis: And Josh, this is consistent with our federal counterpart to the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, which, of course, is the Americans with Disabilities Act. Is that right?
Goodbaum: Yeah, that’s right, Amanda. So, this is the first time that a Connecticut appellate court – the Supreme Court or the Appellate Court – has said, “We agree with the way the federal law is interpreted.” Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, it was already true that an employee could not get an accommodation that eliminated an essential function of their job, and Connecticut law now aligns with that federal reality.
DeMatteis: So, the question becomes, “Is working in the office an essential function of your position?” And that can be a pretty difficult question to answer. If you need help doing so, come up with all the facts relating to your specific employment situation, and talk with an employment lawyer. That’s always the best place to start.
Thank you so much, Josh, for this important employment law update in Connecticut, and we’ll see you next time. Take care.
Posted by Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C. in Commentary
Tagged Amanda DeMatteis, Joshua Goodbaum, Reasonable Accommodation
