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

oll call” and Sergeant Mathena generally teasing him about his age,handicap permits and limp arms. C-20.187. An email dated October 31, 2005 purportedly from Officer Spellman to theentire department makes reference to his (Spellman’s) “old ticker’ and prunejuice. C-20.188. The four emails contained in C-20 were not actually sent by OfficerSpellman but by someone unknown who had access to his computer andused it on occasions when he had failed to log off. TR p. 310.189. Officer Spellman found the emails derogatory to an older person but did notcomplain. TR p. 311.190. The July 27, 2002 email was addressed to everyone including Chief Hard.TR p. 273.191. By way of a November 1, 2004 email Captain Blatter addressed the emailsituation generally. C-21.192. Blatter’s November 1 email was addressed to certain supervisors, includingLieutenants Willauer and Samsel. C-21.193. Captain Blatter’s November 1 email states that while the ageist emails areharmless, requiring only a “gentle cautionary reminder,” those who areunscrupulous might “twist” them and they could be used in a frivolouscomplaint. C-21.194. Chief Hard remained unwilling at the hearing before the commission tocharacterize the C-20 emails as inappropriate, although she testified thatthey reflected less than the best of judgment. TR p. 1118.Page 28 of 56