CHRO ex. rel. Donald Rajtar v. Town of Bloomfield - Connecticut ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

171. None of the witnesses to the Lee’s incident (Roshana, Marlon or Caines)testified at the hearing before Chapman. TR p. 1160.172. Age discrimination was not dealt with in the hearing before Chapman. TR p.1185.173. Chief Hard did not disclose to Chapman prior to his decision that thecomplainant had made an age discrimination complaint (Driscoll IA) againstSergeant Driscoll. TR pp 1184-1186.174. Chief Hard “could not find any motive” why the witnesses would lie(although the record is silent as to any efforts by her or her investigators toidentify any possible motivation or bias). TR p. 949.175. Chapman decided to uphold Chief Hard’s recommendation to terminate thecomplainant after the hearing. TR p. 1167.176. Chapman took the action he did because he believed the complainant hadlied and because he refused to acknowledge it. TR p. 1174.177. Chapman relied on Lieutenant Willauer’s investigation. TR p. 1167.178. At the time of Chapman’s decision he had no knowledge of the Driscoll IA.TR pp. 1184, 1185.179. Through negotiations with the union – and after the hearing beforeChapman but before rendering his decision – Chapman offered thecomplainant a suspension, which required a public apology and acceptanceof wrongdoing, but the offer was rejected. TR pp. 1162-1164.180. On April 20, 2004, one day after Chapman had ratified Chief Hard’srecommendation to terminate the complainant, she issued a writtenPage 26 of 56
exoneration of Sergeant Driscoll clearing him of all the complainant’sdiscrimination charges against him in the Driscoll IA. R-22.181. Officer Robert Spellman (Officer Spellman) has been a patrol officer with thedepartment since 1996. TR p. 306.182. Officer Spellman was born on June 22, 1956. TR p. 307.183. Prior to the commission hearing the respondent produced a number ofinterdepartmental emails containing “ageist” humor, particularly regardingOfficer Spellman. C-20.184. Of the emails contained within C-20, one dated July 27, 2002 purportedlyfrom Officer Spellman and directed to the entire department (necessarilyincluding the complainant) makes reference to his (Spellman’s) 4 pmbedtime, prune juice, fig juice, being as old as dirt, civil war service,drooling, adult diapers and being decrepit and feeble. C-20.185. The email dated July 25, 2003 purportedly from Officer Spellman tonumerous department members (including the complainant – who wasapproximately two years older than Officer Spellman) makes reference tohis (Spellman’s) being forgetful, mindless, unable to bathe, moving to aretirement center and being a wrinkly skinned guy who drools on himselfand wears oversized diapers. C-20.186. An email dated September 13, 2005, purportedly from Officer Spellman tovarious department members (the complainant had already beenterminated), makes reference to Sergeant Mathena “blowing me up duringPage 27 of 56
Page 1 and 2: STATE OF CONNECTICUTCOMMISSION ON H
Page 3 and 4: 5. Prior to the complainant’s ter
Page 5 and 6: 21. Sergeant Driscoll mistakenly be
Page 7 and 8: Sergeant Driscoll’s basket at the
Page 9 and 10: 55. Sergeant Driscoll discussed his
Page 11 and 12: 71. Chief Hard concluded that a wri
Page 13 and 14: interviewed Roshana or even that he
Page 15 and 16: never talked to Roshana, while igno
Page 17 and 18: 105. The complainant confirmed to L
Page 19 and 20: submitted his February 26, 2004 C-9
Page 21 and 22: 133. The complainant had no prior h
Page 23 and 24: 146. On or about March 10, 2004 Lie
Page 25: 164. Officers may be reluctant to g
Page 29 and 30: 195. Multiple copies of a pamphlet
Page 31 and 32: handled the complainant’s grievan
Page 33 and 34: 223. Lieutenant Willauer concluded
Page 35 and 36: 238. By arbitration award dated Dec
Page 37 and 38: complainant must show that: (1) he
Page 39 and 40: explanation is pretextual, and unwo
Page 41 and 42: of persuasion placed upon him by Re
Page 43 and 44: the complainant. Lieutenant Willaue
Page 45 and 46: ecommendation. I do not find that t
Page 47 and 48: Lee’s having words with Marlon an
Page 49 and 50: complainant would have been given a
Page 51 and 52: o The emails certainly qualify as t
Page 53 and 54: he clearly had resigned himself to
Page 55 and 56: for COBRA coverage and allowed his

CHRO ex. rel. Donald Rajtar v. Town of Bloomfield - Connecticut ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?