Mary Hodgdon v. Mt. Mansfield Company, Inc.

Summary

The court affirmed judgment on the invasion-of-privacy claim but reversed summary judgment on the sex-discrimination claim and the ruling that plaintiff was not a handicapped individual under FEPA. It held that FEPA plaintiffs seeking legal damages are entitled to a jury trial, although plaintiff was not entitled to one because her complaint requested only equitable relief. The court concluded that requiring an employee with a visible physical impairment to conceal it from customers may constitute treating the employee as substantially limited in the ability to work. The dissent was without opinion.