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

pre-fire plans and has not had any problems reading those items. Tr. 1088-90. He alsotestified that he rarely has had to consult the Hazmat book and has only consulted itonce in seventeen (17) years as a firefighter, his testimony was not rebutted. Tr. 1081-82, 1094-97. In 1994, he stated that he referenced MSDS once while working withMcGrath. Tr. 1094-95. Also, he testified that he has never had problems readingplacards. Tr. 1100. The standard operating guidelines state that the procedure followedat a hazmat incident scene is to “[d]etermine the presence of hazardous materials.Many times this is accomplished prior to arrival through the dispatcher.” R. Ex. 4, SOG# 111.01. This is evidence that reading seldom occurs at a hazmat scene because thereading necessary to determine hazmat materials is done by the dispatcher. In fact, thecomplainant has read computer screens as a dispatch supervisor for approximately twoyears with no problems. FF 34 and 43.There is no evidence to corroborate the respondent’s contention that reading in atimely manner is an essential function of the captain position. In fact, there was muchuncertainty as to this criterion. Is the essential function “reading fast,” “quicklyprocessing written information,” “reading in a timely manner,” “reading in general” or“reading correctly?” The testimony was quite inconsistent. It appears that thecomplainant’s ability to quickly process written information was never an issue and didnot become an issue until he requested an accommodation to take the captainpromotional exam. It is clear that the complainant must read materials as an actingcaptain, as a lieutenant, as a hazmat technician and while working as a supervisor indispatch, and he has never had any performance problems while doing his duties underemergency situations. FF 34.Page 20 of 49