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

e unreasonable due to public safety concerns on the job. R. Brief, pp. 21-23 and 28-30. This is a two-part argument for showing the accommodation was not reasonable.aJob RelatednessFirst, the respondent argued that the requested accommodation “would haveeliminated from the exam process the need to read under a predetermined timeconstraint. Reading under this time constraint is necessary to test the ability to read in atimely manner, which is an essential function of the job of Fire Captain.” R. Brief, p. 15,R. Reply Brief, p. 9. In its November 18, 2002 denial letter, the respondent stated that“[i]t is an essential function of the position of Fire Captain to quickly process writteninformation in order to plan an effective fire attack. . . . the examination must beadministered in written form and within the predetermined time limit, in order to test,among other things, a candidate’s ability to quickly process written information.” FF 22.“Nothing in [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act] precludes the use of testing or measuringprocedures; obviously they are useful. What Congress has forbidden is giving thesedevices and mechanisms controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonablemeasure of job performance. Congress has not commanded that the less qualified bepreferred over the better qualified simply because of minority origins. Far fromdisparaging job qualifications as such, Congress has made such qualifications thecontrolling factor, so that race, religion, nationality, and sex become irrelevant. WhatCongress has commanded is that any tests used must measure the person for the joband not the person in the abstract.” Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 436Page 26 of 49