Opinion ID: 775959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nicolle Quental

Text: 12 Quental works as a sign-language interpreter for one of the defendants, the State of Connecticut Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired (the Commission). Quental v. Conn. Comm'n on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired, 122 F. Supp. 2d 133, 136 (D. Conn. 2000). Quental's clients include people with mental health disabilities. Id. Soon after Quental was hired, she took and passed a written examination on the national Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) Code of Ethics. Id. The Code of Ethics is a national standard of ethics interpreters follow when providing interpreting services. Id. The Code is incorporated by reference into the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governing Quental's employment. Id. The CBA states the Code shall be honored by both the Commission and its employees. Id. Quental testified that she understood the Code to be part of the terms and conditions of her employment. Id. In relevant part, the Code states: 13 Interpreters/transliterators shall not counsel, advise or interject personal opinions... Just as interpreters/transliterators may not omit anything which is said, they also may not add anything to the situation.... [T]he interpreter/transliterator's only function is to facilitate communication. He/she shall not become personally involved. 14 Id. 15 In 1996, Quental was on an interpreting assignment for the Commission at a mental health facility. Id. During a break in the interpreting session, Quental spoke with the client about smoking. Id. She told the client that the Lord had delivered [her] from smoking. Id. (alteration in the original). She asked the client if she could pray for him so that he might also quit smoking, and then verbally prayed for the client in his presence. Id. The client told Quental's supervisor, defendant Stacie Eusko Mawson, of the incident the next day. Id. Mawson told Quental it was inappropriate to pray for a client in a client's presence, especially clients in mental health facilities. Id. at 136-37. Quental testified that she understood the discussion to mean she should not pray for clients in their presence, especially mentally ill clients, because you don't know what could set them off. Id. at 137. 16 In October 1997, Quental was on an interpreting assignment at the University of Connecticut Health Center. Id. During the language assessment period - the time when interpreter and client make small talk so the interpreter can assess the client's signing style - Quental shared some of her personal history and religious beliefs with the client. Id. When the client told Quental she had been sexually abused, Quental informed the client that Quental had a relationship with the Lord and God had helped [Quental] in [her] past dealing with [her] past and [that] he could help her also. Id. She also told the client that she used to smoke and that the Lord [had] delivered [her] from that. Id. (alterations in the original). Quental then gave the client religious tracts entitled Should I go to church? The Key and What Does it Mean to Believe. Id. The tracts contained passages from the Bible and were stamped with the name of a church. Quental testified that even after she familiarized herself with the client's signing style, she kept up the conversation about religion because it was obvious that [the client] was very upset and Quental was hopeful that [her conversation] would give her hope. Id. 17 A few days later, Karen Wilson, a representative of the Mental Health Association of Connecticut, Inc., contacted the Commission to complain about Quental's behavior during the University of Connecticut assignment. Id. Quental objects to the admission of Wilson's deposition testimony describing what the client said regarding the interpreting session, arguing the testimony is inadmissible hearsay. For the purposes of our analysis, the relevant testimony is Wilson's description of how the client related what happened, admissible as Wilson's first-hand knowledge of the client's behavior. Wilson testified that the client, a mental health patient, appeared agitated and used very strong signs, and she was very gestural in signing to Wilson. Id. 18 The Commission conducted an investigation of Wilson's complaint. As a result of the investigation, the Commission issued a letter of reprimand to Quental on March 5, 1998. The letter stated, in relevant part, that Quental was free to hold [her] religious beliefs and live by [her] religious convictions, [but that] during the time [she is] being paid by the State of Connecticut to provide interpreting services, [she] should not promote [her] religious beliefs. Id. (alterations in the original). 19 Quental brought suit on January 12, 1999. Both sides moved for summary judgment. In granting defendants' motion, the district court found 1) the Commission's interest in avoiding a disruption of the workplace, maintaining efficiency in the workplace and avoiding a violation of the Establishment Clause outweighs the plaintiff's interest in expressing her religious beliefs to a client while on an interpreting assignment; 2) Quental has failed to adduce evidence showing that the defendants selectively treated her in enforcing the Commission's policies or that their enforcement of the policies was motivated by a discriminatory purpose; and 3) the Commission reasonably accommodated Quental's religious practices, and to the extent that it did not, it could not do so with undue hardship. Id. at 136. This appeal followed.