CHRO ex. rel. Lenotti v. City of Stamford - Connecticut Employment ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

43. The complainant satisfactorily performed the duties of captain without anaccommodation while serving as an acting captain. Tr. 570, 773-79, 740-56.Also, the complainant was able to perform his role satisfactorily as an actingcaptain in the dispatch division without an accommodation for approximatelytwo years. Tr. 570, 774-79 and 1101-06.44. The complainant used ten (10) vacation days to participate in thislitigation at the commission’s offices. Tr. 1151-52.IDISCUSSIONAFederal LawThe complainant alleged that the respondent violated Title VII, the ADA andSection 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as enforced through General Statutes §46a-58 (a) when it discriminated against him because of his learning disability andmental disorder.However, § 46a-58 (a) does not bar discrimination on the bases oflearning and mental disabilities.Section 46a-58 (a) provides: “It shall be adiscriminatory practice in violation of this section for any person to subject, or cause tobe subjected, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities,secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of this state or of the United States, onaccount of religion, national origin, alienage, color, race, sex, sexual orientation,blindness or physical disability.” Therefore, this tribunal does not have jurisdiction toadjudicate the complainant’s federal claims. Consequently, the complainant’s Title VII,ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims are dismissed. See Cosme v. Sunrise Estates, LLC,CHRO No. 0510210, June 29, 2007.Page 10 of 49
BState LawThe complainant also alleged that the respondent violated General Statutes §§46a-61 and 46a-64 et seq. However, the complainant and the commission neitherproduced evidence of these claims nor argued the merits of these causes of action intheir briefs 3 . Therefore, the complainant’s §§ 46a-61 and 64 claims are dismissed. Theremaining allegation is the claim for the violation of § 46a-60 (a) (1), which is viable andthe focus of this decision.The respondent has been charged with violating § 46a-60 (a) (1) for failing toaccommodate the complainant’s learning and mental disabilities, failing to promote him,denying him a raise and paying him a different rate of pay 4 . As set forth in § 46a-60(a), “It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section: (1) For an employer,by the employer or the employer’s agent, except in the case of a bona fide occupationalqualification or need . . . to discriminate against such individual in compensation or interms, conditions or privileges of employment because of the individual’s race, color,religious creed, age, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, present or past historyof mental disability, mental retardation, learning disability or physical disability . . ..”“While § 46a-60 (a) does not specifically require an employer to reasonablyaccommodate an employee’s disability, an employer’s duty to provide such reasonable3 In support of their argument for attorney’s fees, the commission and the complainant provided an extremely sparseargument, which contained three conclusory sentences asserting violations of § 46a-64 (a) (1) and (2) in thedamages section of their brief; the first time these violations were mentioned. C. Brief, pp. 46-47. Also, there wasno mention of their claim for a violation of § 46a-61 in their brief or reply brief.4 While the commission and complainant stated all but one (differential rate of pay) of these allegations in theirbrief, they only provided arguments pertaining to the failure to reasonably accommodate claim. C. Brief.Page 11 of 49
Page 1 and 2: STATE OF CONNECTICUTCOMMISSION ON H
Page 3 and 4: The commission investigated the all
Page 5 and 6: complainant seek a medical consulta
Page 7 and 8: firefighting and neither she nor Mc
Page 9: and other daily departmental duties
Page 13 and 14: CFailure to Reasonably Accommodate1
Page 15 and 16: discrepancy and evidence of process
Page 17 and 18: espondent’s classified service ru
Page 19 and 20: lieutenant versus a captain, that h
Page 21 and 22: I do not find that reading in a tim
Page 23 and 24: 20. “The ADA defines ‘reasonabl
Page 25 and 26: There is much evidence in the recor
Page 27 and 28: (1971). The respondent’s argument
Page 29 and 30: “[t]he time limit is designed so
Page 31 and 32: employer’s BFOQ. See Commission o
Page 33 and 34: characterize the “nature or type
Page 35 and 36: However, no one from the respondent
Page 37 and 38: The respondent argued that Boller
Page 39 and 40: ut requested an accommodation to ta
Page 41 and 42: and further requiring the responden
Page 43 and 44: is an excellent candidate. FF. 3; T
Page 45 and 46: interview with the fire commission.
Page 47 and 48: inform the respondent in writing wi
Page 49: _________________________Donna Mari

CHRO ex. rel. Lenotti v. City of Stamford - Connecticut Employment ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?