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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

accommodation is, nevertheless, well established in Connecticut law. See, for example,Conte v. Board of Education, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No.CV-02-0466475 (2003 WL 21219371, 4) (May 15, 2003); Trimachi v. ConnecticutWorkers Compensation Committee, judicial district at New Haven, Docket No. CV-97-0403037s (June 14, 2000) (27 Conn. L. Rptr. 469, 473); Commission on Human Rights& Opportunities ex rel. Kochey v. Eastman Kodak Co., CHRO Case No. 8310319, 29-30(April 30, 1996); LaRoche v. United Technologies Corp., CHRO Case No. FEP-PD-60-1, 10-11 (August 28, 1978).” Cosme v. Sunrise Estates, LLC, CHRO No. 0510210, n. 4,June 29, 2007.It is well established that Connecticut’s anti-discrimination statutes arecoextensive with the federal law on this issue and therefore, this case will be analyzedusing both the prevailing Connecticut and federal law. See Pik-Kwik Stores, Inc. v.Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 170 Conn. 327, 331 (1976). The statecourts look to federal fair employment case law when interpreting Connecticut’s antidiscriminationstatutes, but federal law should be used as a guide and not the end all forinterpreting state statutes. See Wroblewski v. Lexington Gardens, Inc., 188 Conn. 44,53 (1982); see also State of Connecticut v. Commission on Human Rights &Opportunities, 211 Conn. 464, 470 (1989).Page 12 of 49
CFailure to Reasonably Accommodate1Prima Facie CaseThe appropriate legal standard 5 is the one articulated in Ezikovich v.Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 57 Conn. App. 767, 774 (2000). Acomplainant can prove a prima facie case of failure to reasonably accommodate hisdisability by showing that (1) his employer is subject to the statute under which the claimis brought, (2) he is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the statute, (3)he could perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonableaccommodation, and (4) his employer had notice of the complainant’s disability andfailed to provide such accommodation. Id.; see also Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc., _Conn. _, Docket No. SC 18025 (April 15, 2008); Stone v. Mount Vernon, 118 F.3d 92,96-97 (2d Cir. 1997); Borkowski v. Valley Central School District, 63 F.3d 131 (2d Cir.1995); Worthington v. City of New Haven, 1999 WL 958627 (D.Conn.). Thecomplainant bears the burden to show that a reasonable accommodation existed thatwould have allowed him to perform the essential functions of his job. Borkowski v.5 The parties applied the standard used in D’Amico v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, 813 F. Sup. 217(W.D.N.Y. 1993) to prove a prima facie case and turned to the burden shifting analysis of the disparate treatmentstandard of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973) to produce a legitimate businessreason and to Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-56 (1981) to prove pretext forPage 13 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 10: and other daily departmental duties
Page 11: BState LawThe complainant also alle
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?