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

pp. 40-41. The respondent further argued that complainant’s reading ability does notmeet the required reading skill of the position. In support of this, the respondent positedthat as an incident commander at a hazardous materials scene (a position held by acaptain), “reading must be done under a time constraint to determine how to defuse theemergency” and the complainant provided no evidence that he could performadequately in this scenario given his slow reading ability.” R. Reply Brief, p. 10. It alsoargued that the complainant did not present evidence that he had ever been an incidentcommander who read written data at a hazardous materials emergency. R. Reply Brief,p. 10.In its letter to the complainant denying the accommodation, the respondentstated that “[i]t is an essential function of the position of Fire Captain to quickly processwritten information in order to plan an effective fire attack.” C. Ex. 9. However, prior tosending the denial letter, there is no evidence in the job description or the practicalduties that supports the need to “quickly process written information“ as an essentialfunction of the job. FF 41-42. In fact, McGrath testified that the duty was simply “to readwritten material at the emergency scene.” Tr. 405-06.In support of the respondent’s reason for denying the complainant’s request,Brown testified that reading in a “timely manner” is an essential function of the job. Tr.395-96. Murphy testified that McGrath “indicated that the role of Captain at anemergency scene, a fire scene, etc., that the speed with which one needs to read andcomprehend is critical to effectively dealing with the emergency situation.” Tr. 66, 69,157. Murphy testified that a captain has to read fast. Tr. 177. He also testified inresponse to the question whether there is a difference in the speed of reading for aPage 18 of 49