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

The issues addressed in this decision are: 1) whether the complainant proved bya preponderance of the evidence that the respondent discriminated against him on thebasis of his disabilities (learning disability and mental disorder) when it failed toreasonably accommodate him in the administration of a promotional examination(exam) for the position of captain; and 2) if so, whether the complainant is entitled toany damages or other relief.For the reasons set forth below, it is hereby determined that the commission andthe complainant have proven that the respondent discriminated against the complainantin violation of state law. Judgment is entered in favor of the complainant and thecommission.Procedural HistoryOn March 1, 2005, the complainant filed his complaint affidavit (complaint) withthe commission alleging that the respondent discriminated against him on February 7,2005 when it failed to reasonably accommodate his disabilities (mental disorder andlearning disability) and when it failed to promote him, paid him a different rate of pay,and denied him a raise because of his disabilities in violation of General Statutes §§46a-58 (a), 46a-60 (a) (1), 46a-61, 46a-64; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asamended, 42 U.S.C 2000e and the Civil Rights Act of 1991; the Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of1973, as amended.Page 2 of 49