Bartolotta v. Human Resources Agency of New Britain, Inc.
Citations
- 224 Conn. App. 248
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 21a-408p), no employer may discharge an employee solely on the basis of such employee's status as a person qualified to use medical marijuana under the Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (§ 21a- 408 et seq.). The plaintiff, whose employment as a preschool teaching assistant with the defendant had been terminated, sought to recover damages from the defendant for, inter alia, its alleged discrimination against her because of her disability, epilepsy. At the time of her hire, the plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the defendant's drug free workplace policy and employee handbook, which included provisions stating that working while under the influence of drugs could result in the termination of her employment. She did not inform the defendant that she suffered from epilepsy until after she experienced a seizure while at work. The defendant thereafter adopted a medical alert protocol for the plaintiff, allowed her, in her discretion, to leave work for the day whenever she experienced a seizure, and transferred her to a different classroom to ensure she would be accompanied by another adult at all times for her safety and the safety of the students. In October, 2018, the plaintiff additionally requested that the nurse on site store Valium in her office and administer it to the plaintiff after she had a seizure. The defendant denied this request in part because the nurse was not permitted to administer medications to the staff, but the defendant did not prohibit the plaintiff from bringing Valium and using it in the workplace as needed. In January, 2019, an incident occurred during which the plaintiff called a child the wrong name in front of D, a teacher at the facility, and told D that she was a medical marijuana user and was feeling the effects from it. D reported this interaction to E, the defendant's education manager, and the defen- dant conducted an investigation into the plaintiff's purported drug use. During the course of the investigation, E an
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that consent was not voluntary because there were two uniformed officers at the scene, one of whom “had placed his hands on [the defendant’s] body to conduct the frisk”
- concluding that, after the defendant had twice indicated he did not want to speak with police, a seizure occurred once he was instructed to “turn around and walk toward the officer”
- holding that the officer seized the defendant by “driving up to him after he had already walked away from another officer and . . . specifically instruct[ing] him to stop and to change the direction in which he was going”
- excluding evidence discovered by police subsequent to illegal police action but before new crime of attempted flight
- finding it “important[]” that “Beauchamp gave his response immediately after Officer Fain had placed his hands on Beauchamp's body to conduct the frisk”
- noting that “if a suspect’s response to an illegal stop is a new and distinct crime, such as flight or use of force, any evidence recovered incident to the arrest for the subsequent crime is not tainted by the unlawfulness of the initial detention”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Elgo; Cradle; Seeley
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.