Background
Stuart Hanke worked for Electric Boat Corporation as an engineering supervisor beginning in 2011. In May 2019, Hanke was observed sleeping during a work meeting and received a letter of reprimand with a five-day suspension. He attributed the incident to family issues and did not disclose any medical condition. In June 2019, Hanke was diagnosed with sleep apnea but never requested any accommodation related to this diagnosis.
In September 2019, significant employee attrition occurred on Hanke’s team. Management scheduled a meeting to discuss his performance and proposed moving him from supervisor to engineering specialist (while retaining his salary). Learning of this meeting, Hanke experienced stress and anxiety, did not attend, and did not return to work. He applied for short-term disability benefits, which were initially approved through October 21, 2019, and extended multiple times. During his leave, the company contacted him about return-to-work plans and informed him of the formal leave-of-absence process, but Hanke did not pursue it or specify a return date.
After exhausting his twenty-six weeks of short-term disability, Hanke applied for long-term disability benefits and was approved on April 14, 2020. Pursuant to company policy, his employment was administratively terminated effective April 30, 2020. In June 2020, Hanke was medically cleared to return to work without restriction. He filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities in June 2020 and sued in 2021 alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Electric Boat on all three counts. Applying the McDonnell Douglas-Burdine framework, the court held that Hanke failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination because he could not perform the essential functions of his job with or without reasonable accommodation at the time of termination. While a medical leave of absence is a recognized accommodation, an employer need not hold a position open indefinitely. Critically, Hanke never requested a formal leave of absence and never provided the company with any indication of whether or when he would return to work, despite the company’s attempts to engage in an interactive process and despite informing him of the formal leave-of-absence procedure.
On the failure-to-accommodate claim, the court held that Hanke could not prevail because he never initiated the required interactive accommodation process. The court rejected his argument that applying for disability benefits constituted a request for accommodation, noting that disability benefits and leave-of-absence requests are separate processes managed through different channels. An employee must affirmatively request an accommodation and provide necessary information (such as an expected return date) for the employer’s duty to accommodate to be triggered.
Regarding retaliation, the court held there was no protected activity because Hanke never requested a reasonable accommodation. Without evidence of a protected act, he could not establish a prima facie retaliation claim under Connecticut General Statutes § 46a-60(b)(1).
Key Takeaways
- Employees seeking reasonable accommodations must affirmatively request them—passive actions such as applying for disability benefits do not constitute a request for accommodation.
- For leave-of-absence requests, employees must provide a specific timeframe or expected return date; indefinite leave requests do not constitute reasonable accommodations an employer must grant.
- Employers must attempt to engage in an informal interactive process with disabled employees once informed of a disability, but if the employee fails to respond or provide necessary information, the employer is entitled to summary judgment.
- An employer’s administrative termination of employment following approval for long-term disability is not per se discriminatory and may be supported by legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the boundaries of employer liability under Connecticut’s disability discrimination laws. It establishes that while employers must engage in good-faith interactive processes and consider reasonable accommodations, employees bear the burden of initiating requests and providing sufficient information. The court’s emphasis on the distinction between disability benefits (compensation during absence) and leave-of-absence accommodations (structured time off with a specified return date) is particularly important for employers and employees alike. Companies may rely on formal procedures to manage accommodation requests and need not guess at indefinite timelines.
The ruling also reinforces that regular attendance is an essential job function. An employee who is unable to work cannot meet the threshold requirement for disability discrimination claims—that the employee be qualified to perform essential functions with or without accommodation. This decision will guide future disability discrimination litigation in Connecticut, making clear that the burden is on the employee to engage meaningfully in the accommodation process and to provide employers with the information necessary to grant reasonable requests.