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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

have been in absent the discriminatory conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511U.S. 244, 254 (1994).The complainant has requested that he be placed in the position of captain.Doing so would eliminate him from having to take the captain promotional exam, whichis required by all candidates pursuant to the civil service rules. FF 2. As this casecenters on a claim for failure to reasonably accommodate a disability for an exam, I donot believe bypassing the exam for which the complainant requested anaccommodation would be prudent or proper. In the alternative, the complainantrequested that he be given the accommodation he requested in order to take thecaptain promotional exam to be appointed to captain. Tr. 1160-61. I have found thatthe respondent failed to accommodate the complainant and therefore is liable fordamages resulting from such failure. Had the respondent provided the complainant withthe accommodation he requested in 2005, the complainant would have known whetherhe would have scored high enough (obtained the required score (FF 2)) to be certifiedfor appointment. Although the next step in the civil service rules after receiving therequired score on the exam is for the fire commission to interview the candidate andselect a candidate for appointment to captain, I do find that this particular step can bebypassed.The fire commission interviews the candidates and makes the selections forappointment to captain. FF 2. Chief McGrath testified that he has provided the firecommission with information regarding a candidate’s character, attendance,performance and leadership skills, and if asked about Lenotti, he would tell the firecommission that the complainant always did his assignments in a timely fashion and hePage 42 of 49
is an excellent candidate. FF. 3; Tr. 484-85. McGrath also believes that thecomplainant would probably be promoted if he received an interview. Tr. 486. Also, theinterview process is not always necessary in the event that the respondent has thesame number of candidates as open positions. FF 9. Thus, all of the eligible candidatesmay be placed in the open positions without the need for a thorough interview by the firecommission. FF 9.Unlike Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, 226 F.3d 69 (2 nd Cir.2000) and D’Amico v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, 813 F. Sup. 217(W.D.N.Y. 1993), where the defendants were entities with only the authority to grant atesting accommodation and bar admittance to practice law, not with the authority toprovide a position for employment, in the present case, the respondent is the employingentity with the authority to grant a testing accommodation, to certify the eligiblecandidate for appointment and ultimately to appoint the candidate to the desiredposition.If the complainant had been granted an accommodation to take the exam, it isspeculative whether he would have obtained the required score and been appointed bythe fire commission to the captain position. However, the complainant firmly believesthat he would obtain the required score if provided with the accommodation of additionaltime. Tr. 1163.Since the respondent denied the accommodation in 2005, thecomplainant has been placed at least three years behind his goal to become captain.Therefore, in light of the discrimination by the respondent, the fact that the respondent isthe same entity to grant an accommodation and to make appointments to the captainposition, the relaxed nature of the interview process, the evidence establishing that thePage 43 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 and 32: employer’s BFOQ. See Commission o
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 further requiring the responden
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?