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

• I am not concerned with the quality of the complainant’s criminal investigation atLee’s and his follow-up thereto. There is ample evidence that some form ofdiscipline, up to and including a possible suspension, would have beenwarranted. But termination was allegedly predicated on his having lied, and myconcern is with whether the respondent’s pursuit and evaluation of this particularclaim was tainted with animus sufficient to render it pretextual.That being said, I am led to conclude that the complainant has satisfied his ultimateburden because of the following:• There was no serious consideration of or inquiry into the possibility that thewitnesses to the incident at Lee’s had not been fully honest in their initialstatements to the complainant, and may have had a reason to be less thanforthcoming. Marlon might have led the complainant to believe that there wereno additional witnesses because he didn’t want them involved in a timeconsuming legal proceeding, because he feared they might be in danger if pittedagainst Joel, or that they might resent his involving them in the matter. Roshanamight have indicated to the complainant that she and Caines had not witnessedthe incident because she didn’t want the bother, because she was friendly withJoel, or perhaps feared him. Later after Caines’ written statement, Marlon andRoshana may have felt the need to correct and coordinate their statements.• There was no serious consideration of or inquiry about the possibility that afailure to define terms may have led to a wrongful conclusion. Just what was the“incident” the witnesses were or were not witness to? Was it Joel storming intoPage 46 of 56