Connecticut Appellate Court Affirms: Applying for Disability Benefits Does Not Equal a Leave Request

A recent decision from the Connecticut Appellate Court provides employers with important guidance on disability discrimination claims under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA). In Stuart Hanke v. Electric Boat Corporation, the court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding that an employee who applies for short-term and/or long-term disability benefits has not, by that act alone, requested a leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation.

Background

Stuart Hanke worked as an engineering supervisor at Electric Boat. In May 2019, he was observed sleeping during a meeting, and after admitting the violation, he received a written reprimand and a five-day suspension. He did not disclose any medical condition at that time; instead, he attributed the incident to family issues. He was later diagnosed with sleep apnea but never requested that his discipline be rescinded or sought an accommodation related to the diagnosis.

By September 2019, a significant number of employees on Hanke’s team had announced plans to resign. Concerned about the high attrition rate, his manager interviewed team members and concluded that Hanke’s performance as a supervisor was the cause. Hanke’s manager scheduled a meeting for September 20, 2019, to discuss Hanke’s performance as a supervisor. He notified Hanke that at the meeting, they would ask him to step down from his supervisory position into an engineering specialist role, but without any reduction in pay.

Learning of the meeting caused Hanke significant stress and anxiety. He did not attend the September 20 meeting and never returned to work. While out, he applied for short-term disability benefits through his employer’s third-party administrator. His benefits were approved and extended multiple times. During this period, Electric Boat remained in contact with Hanke about his return to work and provided him with information about how to request a formal leave of absence. Hanke, however, never submitted such a request.

After exhausting his 26 weeks of short-term disability benefits, Hanke applied for and received long-term disability benefits. Electric Boat maintains a policy that employees approved for long-term disability are administratively terminated. Accordingly, Hanke’s employment ended on April 30, 2020.

Hanke filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) and, after receiving a release of jurisdiction, brought suit in Superior Court under CFEPA. Hanke asserted that his former employer had (1) discriminated against him by terminating his employment because of his disabilities (sleep apnea, stress, and anxiety); (2) failed to provide a reasonable accommodation in the form of a leave of absence; and (3) retaliated against him for requesting an accommodation. The trial court granted summary judgment for Electric Boat on all counts, and the Appellate Court affirmed.

Why the Employer Prevailed

Disability Discrimination Claim. To bring a successful disability discrimination claim, an employee must show, among other things, that he was “qualified” for the position. To be considered a “qualified” employee with a disability, the employee must show that he was able to perform the essential functions of his job (either with or without a reasonable accommodation) at the time of the adverse employment decision.

Because Hanke did not claim that he was able to perform the essential functions of his job without a reasonable accommodation, he needed to prove he could do so with one. He argued that a leave of absence would have been a reasonable accommodation enabling him to perform his duties.

While a medical leave of absence can sometimes qualify as a reasonable accommodation, the critical issue here was that Hanke never actually requested one. He applied only for short-term and long-term disability benefits through the third-party administrator—entitling him to income replacement while out of work but not constituting a formal leave request. And although Electric Boat had attempted to engage Hanke in the interactive process by sharing information about applying for a leave of absence, the plaintiff never followed through. Accordingly, Hanke could not show he was “qualified” for the position (with or without a reasonable accommodation), which meant that his disability discrimination claim failed.

Failure to Accommodate Claim. Hanke’s accommodation claim was similarly unsuccessful. Although employers are obligated to make a good-faith effort to explore potential reasonable accommodations to help employees overcome disability-based limitations, the employee (not the employer) must first come forward with a request for an accommodation. Here, the plaintiff never initiated the interactive process to request a reasonable accommodation, because he never actually requested to take a leave of absence. Since Hanke could not demonstrate that he requested this accommodation, he could not make out a successful failure to accommodate claim.

Retaliation Claim. Finally, the court addressed Hanke’s retaliation claim. To prove retaliation, an employee must show that he engaged in some form of protected activity and that the employer took adverse action because of it. Requesting an accommodation qualifies as protected activity, and Hanke claimed that Electric Boat retaliated against him for requesting leave. But as the court had already determined, Hanke never actually made that request—so his retaliation claim failed too.

Key Takeaways for Employers

The Hanke decision offers several practical reminders for Connecticut employers navigating disability-related issues.

First, there is an important distinction between disability benefits and leave of absence requests. An employee’s application for disability benefits through a third-party administrator is not, by itself, a request for a reasonable accommodation. Employers should maintain clear policies distinguishing these processes and ensure employees understand how to request an accommodation.

Second, employers should engage in the interactive process and document their participation in that process. Electric Boat’s communications with Hanke—particularly the email explaining the leave-of-absence process—were key evidence supporting summary judgment. Even though Hanke never responded, the documentation demonstrated that the employer fulfilled its obligation to engage in the interactive process.

Finally, navigating disability accommodations, including medical leave requests, can be complex. Employers should consult legal counsel when developing policies and procedures or responding to accommodation requests.