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

• When Roshana and Marlon gave their last statements to Lieutenant Willauer,they were informed that the statements were being used to evaluate an officer.Their prior statements were given under the presumed understanding that theywere to further a criminal prosecution of Joel.• Captain Blatter’s investigation of the Driscoll IA seemed to end before it began.On the day the complainant disclosed to him that he was a victim of agediscrimination at the hands of Sergeant Driscoll, and just hours before that hewas placed on administrative leave, the Driscoll IA seemingly shut down.Neither Sergeant Driscoll nor any other witness was interviewed from that pointforward. Chief Hard seemingly paid no attention to this disclosure and allowedthe Rajtar IA to proceed through conclusion.• There was obvious disparity in the three disciplinary situations regardingyounger officers cited by the complainant when compared to that which heendured. While Chief Hard took a firm position in the Simmons matter,particularly regarding his apparent dishonesty, he was an officer with a poorrecord who was allowed to survive in part because Chapman believed that achange in supervision—something the complainant had sought and wasdenied—might still salvage his career. The “choir practice” incident, particularlywith regard to the conduct of Sergeant Gerrish, while not centered ondishonesty, was very serious, and one can reasonably conclude that thecomplainant’s career would not have survived an administrative finding of hisdriving a vehicle while intoxicated into a porto potty after a night of drinking in apublic place with his subordinates. One can also be skeptical that thePage 48 of 56