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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

evidence is required[.]” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 220.see also Simms v. The City of New York, et al., 160 F.Sup.2d 398, 406-07 (E.D.N.Y.2001); Jansen v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 110 N.J. 363, 375-77 (1988) (indetermining a reasonable probability of substantial harm, the determination cannot bebased merely on an employer’s subjective evaluation or merely on medical reports, butthe employer must consider employee’s work history and medical history); Mantolete v.Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1422 (9 th Cir. 1985) (“an employer must gather all relevantinformation regarding the applicant’s work history and medical history, andindependently assess both the probability and severity of potential injury. This involves,of course, a case-by-case analysis of the applicant and the particular job”).In order to determine whether an individual would cause harm to the publicsafety, four criteria should be considered: “(1) the duration of the risk [how long it lasts];2) the nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) the likelihood that potential harm willoccur; and 4) the imminence of potential harm . . ..” (Citations omitted.) Lovejoy-Wilsonv. NOCO Motor Fuel, Inc., supra, 263 F.3d 220. The complainant’s learning disability inwhich he needs extra time to take exams is continuously present. FF 16. Thecomplainant has never incurred an injury or caused any harm to himself or others as aresult of his disability or reading ability. FF 36. Similar to Lovejoy, until thecomplainant’s request for an accommodation and this litigation, the respondent had notexpressed a concern about the complainant’s ability to perform his job as a lieutenant oracting captain because of such a risk of potential harm.McGrath testified that the threat to the public and the fire department personnelincreases with the passage of time. Tr. 417. However, there was no actual evidence toPage 32 of 49
characterize the “nature or type of threat.” McGrath further testified, “But I would say,yes, that is a problem if you’re a slow reader and can’t make timely decisions withregard to life, safety and saving property.” Tr. 447. McGrath testified that a “timelyfashion” means: “Within a few minutes after responding, getting on the scene, size upand you know you just can’t sit around and say let me read this four or five times andsee if I can comprehend it. Meanwhile, the fire or the incident is escalating to the pointwhere it can cause more damage and possibly loss of lives at the scene.” Tr. 552.Although McGrath provided an example here of the nature and severity of potentialharm, there was no evidence that the complainant needed to read materials at anemergency scene four or five times. In direct contradiction to his testimony, McGrathtestified that the complainant always has completed his assignments in a timely fashion.Tr. 484-85.The respondent argued that based on McGrath’s testimony, “[I]t stands to reasonthat as an incident commander reads materials at the scene of an emergency, theemergency will worsen as time passes until mitigation efforts begin.” R. Brief, p.19.Without any expert or any analytical support for its contention, McGrath’s testimonymerely stated his own general thoughts that an increased delay over the normal period“more likely” would cause, for example, an explosion. R. Brief, p.19; Tr. 417. Here,again, McGrath provides an example of a type of potential harm, an explosion, but noevidence that the complainant’s disability would cause an increased delay. There wasno explanation or definition as to what constituted the “normal period” or “increaseddelay.” In other words, there was no testimony as to the nature and severity of thePage 33 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 and 30: “[t]he time limit is designed so
Page 31: employer’s BFOQ. See Commission o
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?