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

• The panel considered the credibility of the witnesses without ever consideringthat the complainant’s accusers might have been motivated by an ageist animusor the need to protect those who were so motivated.• If the respondent’s proffered reason for terminating the complainant waspretextual, and the termination was actually effectuated primarily because of agediscrimination, the events properly under review by me effectively culminatedwith Chapman’s ratification of Chief Hard’s recommendation, and in mostrespects would remain unchanged by testimony presented to and action taken bythe arbitration panel, by which time the decision was beyond the respondent’scontrol and alleged animus.C.The identity of the decision makersThe complainant’s termination was the result of a complex chain of events, commencingwith a relatively routine preliminary investigation and culminating with a hearing beforethe town manager. At various point along the way the chain of events might have takena different tack and resulted in something short of termination of employment. In thatrespect there were decision makers all along the way. Some of them--and some of thedecisions they made--were as follows. Sergeants Driscoll and Mathena decided to seeka disciplinary investigation of the complainant rather than try to rectify possibly innocentinconsistencies in statements and recollections, or to explore the possibility that thecivilian witnesses might have been less than fully cooperative when first questioned byPage 42 of 56