Page 39 - CLT072720

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JULY 27, 2020 ¦ 39

compel questioning as to those conversations. his sexual orientation in violation of the Civil
The court then turned to the non-privileged is- Rights Act and his medical issues in viola-
sues of the motion. It held that Roe must an- tion of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
swer questions regarding communications with Defendant moved for summary judgment on
plaintiff during the investigation, but that he the ADA claims and the court denied in part.
will not have to answer questions about the cir- Count Two alleged that defendant violated the
cumstances under which he obtained counsel ADA by discriminating against the plaintiff
during the investigation. based on plaintiff ’s HIV status. The court de-
nied defendant’s motion as to this count, find-
ing that plaintiff offered at least minimally suf-
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION ficient evidence to let a jury infer that the defen-

Court Granted Defendant’s Motion For dant had notice that plaintiff was HIV positive.
The parties did not dispute that plaintiff had
Summary Judgment In Part In Lawsuit told defendant that he had a partner, and that
Alleging Discrimination Under ADA he had an unspecified life threatening illness.
Plaintiff testified that the then-company presi-
CASE: Choleva v. New England Stair Co., Inc. dent used pejorative names like “faggot” and
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut was upset about his frequent absences. Count
DOC. NO.: 3:18-cv-756 Three alleges that defendant violated the ADA
COURT OPINION BY: Arterton by discriminating against plaintiff based on his
DATE: July 14, 2020 • PAGES: 15 ADHD. The court found that plaintiff failed
Plaintiff, a gay man with ADHD who was di- to demonstrate that he was disabled within the
agnosed as HIV positive, worked for defendant meaning of the ADA. He did not allege that
for four months. During those months, he this learning disability substantially limited
submitted multiple requests for time off. He any of his major life activities, he didn’t pro-
never specifically disclosed that he was gay or vide evidence as to how his ADHD affected his
disclosed his diagnoses, but had made various ability to learn or concentrate, and he admit-
comments about his partner and having an ill- ted that it was controlled by taking medication.
ness. Plaintiff sued defendant, alleging that Therefore, the court granted defendant’s mo-
he was discriminated against on the basis of tion for summary judgment as to Count Three.

IN WHAT PRACTICES ARE YOUR
COMPETITORS GROWING?

Ask Legal Compass: at.alm.com/legalcompass

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune