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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the position of captain then one would think that the respondent would provide an examspecifically for testing the skill of the speed at which one reads. If the rate for readingwas truly a required qualification for the captain position, the criterion, e.g., “must read100 words per minute” should be stated in respondent’s records or documents for theposition, which according to the evidence, it was not.There was no evidence in the record that once an exam is graded the category ofthe speed at which one read or at which one completed the exam was recorded andcompared to other candidates or met a preset criterion for speed. The exam allows acandidate to spend three and one half hours answering the questions and somecandidates complete the exam before the time has expired. FF 5-6. However, noanalysis of their score and of the time they completed the exam was done for those whoscored in the top rankings. In addition, there was no evidence of the particular rate ofspeed one is required to read to perform the duties of a captain. I find the exam is not atest intended to measure the applicant’s ability to read quickly or in a timely manner.bSafety DefenseThe second part of respondent’s argument was that if a captain did not quicklyprocess written information or read in a timely manner he could jeopardize or causeharm to public safety. R. Brief. p.28. Tr. 368-69. The respondent argued that “there isno reasonable accommodation that would allow a slow reader to safely perform thereading responsibilities of a [c]aptain acting as an incident commander at the scene of a[hazmat] emergency. R. Brief, p. 23. A safety defense may be used to constitute anPage 30 of 49
employer’s BFOQ. See Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. GeneralDynamics Corp., et al. 1995 WL 264014, 8-9 (Conn.Super.); see also Johnson v. Stateof Connecticut Department of Correction, CHRO No. 9740163, (March 9, 2000). Therespondent has the burden to prove the safety defense and meets its burden byshowing “there would have been a reasonable probability of substantial harm to theapplicant or others with respect to the specific jobs in issue . . ..” (Citations omitted.)Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. General Dynamics Corp., supra, 1995WL 264014, 9.The federal courts give additional guidance on the safety defense.In Lovejoy-Wilson v. NOCO Motor Fuel, Inc., supra 263 F.3d 219-20, thedefendant asserted the affirmative defense that the plaintiff was not a qualifiedindividual because she posed “a direct threat to the health or safety of other individualsin the workplace. . . . The ADA defines ‘direct threat’ as ‘a significant risk to the health orsafety of others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.’ . . .Expanding on the ‘direct threat’ language, the EEOC has stated that it ‘means asignificant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others thatcannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.’ . . . The EEOCguidelines further provide that: An employer . . . is not permitted to deny anemployment opportunity to an individual with a disability merely because of a slightlyincreased risk. The risk can only be considered when it poses a significant risk, i.e. highprobability, of substantial harm; a speculative or remote risk is insufficient. . . . Toprotect disabled individuals from discrimination based on prejudice, stereotypes, orunfounded fear, . . . an individualized assessment of the [employee’s] present ability tosafely perform the essential functions of the job based on medical or other objectivePage 31 of 49
Page 1 and 2: STATE OF CONNECTICUTCOMMISSION ON H
Page 3 and 4: The commission investigated the all
Page 5 and 6: complainant seek a medical consulta
Page 7 and 8: firefighting and neither she nor Mc
Page 9 and 10: and other daily departmental duties
Page 11 and 12: BState LawThe complainant also alle
Page 13 and 14: CFailure to Reasonably Accommodate1
Page 15 and 16: discrepancy and evidence of process
Page 17 and 18: espondent’s classified service ru
Page 19 and 20: lieutenant versus a captain, that h
Page 21 and 22: I do not find that reading in a tim
Page 23 and 24: 20. “The ADA defines ‘reasonabl
Page 25 and 26: There is much evidence in the recor
Page 27 and 28: (1971). The respondent’s argument
Page 29: “[t]he time limit is designed so
Page 33 and 34: characterize the “nature or type
Page 35 and 36: However, no one from the respondent
Page 37 and 38: The respondent argued that Boller
Page 39 and 40: ut requested an accommodation to ta
Page 41 and 42: and further requiring the responden
Page 43 and 44: is an excellent candidate. FF. 3; T
Page 45 and 46: interview with the fire commission.
Page 47 and 48: inform the respondent in writing wi
Page 49: _________________________Donna Mari

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?