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

knowledge of the complainant’s learning disability since January 2001 or alternatively,at least since October 25, 2002 when the complainant formally submitted his initialrequest. FF 18 and 21.Second, the respondent argued that it was not aware of the complainant’sADD/ADHD. R. Brief, p. 25. The commission argued that the respondent “was wellaware of [Boller’s] recommendation that the [c]omplainant seek a medical consultationabout ADHD.” C. Reply Brief, p. 3. The complainant did not consult Epstein until 2004regarding ADD and Epstein diagnosed the complainant with ADD. FF 13; CHRO Ex. 15and 16. However, the complainant did not provide the respondent with Epstein’s letteror inform the respondent of his ADD. FF 25. While the Boller evaluation recommended“a medical consultation to discuss ADHD,” Boller did not diagnose the complainant atthe time with ADHD. FF 12. I find that the respondent had no knowledge of thecomplainant’s ADD/ADHD. However, the complainant has proven that the respondenthad knowledge of his language based learning disability and next must show that herequested a reasonable accommodation, which accommodation the respondent denied.dRequest and Denial of AccommodationOn January 28, 2005, the complainant requested that the respondent administerthe captain promotional exam in an audio format or provide him with extra time to takethe exam as a reasonable accommodation for his disability. FF 23 and 24. Therespondent granted other requests from firefighters with learning disabilities for thesame accommodation, extra time to take an exam (see C. Ex. 10 –11; CHRO Ex. 24-25), and the Boller report recommended “untimed tests” for the complainant. FF 17 andPage 22 of 49