Caruso v. Siemens Business Communications Systems, Inc.

Second Circuit

Caruso v. Siemens Business Communications Systems, Inc.

418 F.3d 164, 16 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1888, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16081, 2005 WL 1844609

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedAugust 4, 2005

DocketDocket No. 04-1478-CV

StatusPublished

This text of 418 F.3d 164 (Caruso v. Siemens Business Communications Systems, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caruso v. Siemens Business Communications Systems, Inc., 418 F.3d 164, 16 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1888, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16081, 2005 WL 1844609 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In Caruso v. Siemens, 392 F.3d 66 (2d Cir.2004), issued on December 9, 2004, we certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court the following questions:

(a) What is the correct interpretation of “chronic” disabilities under CFEPA?

(b) At what point, in relation to the act of discrimination complained of, must a disability qualify as “chronic” to support recovery under CFEPA?

(e) If CFEPA applies only to disabilities that are “chronic” at the time of the alleged act of discrimination, is evidence of the progression of an illness or injury after the alleged act of discrimination probative of whether that disability was in fact “chronic” when the alleged act of discrimination occurred?

Caruso, 392 F.3d at 72.

On April 1, 2005, the parties signed a stipulation, which was approved by the court, thereby settling the case. Accordingly, we instruct the Clerk of Court to request the Connecticut Supreme Court to withdraw the questions certified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI