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

Valley Central School District, supra, 63 F.3d 138-39. Once the complainant hassatisfied his burden, the respondent has the burden to prove the accommodation wouldbe unreasonable or would cause undue hardship. Id.aDisabilityFirst, there is no dispute that the respondent is subject to the Connecticut fairemployment laws and, therefore, § 46a-60 (a) (1) is applicable as alleged. Second,under § 46a-51 (19), a person with a learning disability is defined as “an individual whoexhibits a severe discrepancy between educational performance and measuredintellectual ability and who exhibits a disorder in one or more of the basic psychologicalprocesses involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which maymanifest itself in a diminished ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell or to domathematical calculations.” The respondent argued that the complainant does not meetthe statutory definition of being learning disabled because he has not presentedevidence showing that he is an individual “who exhibits a severe discrepancy betweeneducational performance and measured intellectual ability and who exhibits a disorderin one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or inusing language.” R. Brief, p. 25.However, according to Boller’s psychological evaluation, the complainant has alanguage-based learning disability. FF 15. She reported that the complainant’s “[b]asicdecoding and spelling skills fell in the low average range and represent a clear andsignificant discrepancy between his high average to superior cognitive ability. Thisdiscrimination in order to analyze the complainant’s claim of failure to reasonably accommodate. C. Brief, pp. 26-32.Page 14 of 49