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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

complainant can perform the essential functions of captain with or without anaccommodation and the testimony of McGrath that he would provide a positiverecommendation of the complainant to the fire commission, the interview process hereshall be bypassed. Accordingly, the respondent shall provide the complainant withadditional time to complete the captain exam and if the complainant obtains the requiredscore on the captain exam, which would certify him to be eligible for appointment, heshall be appointed to the captain position. See Commission on Human Rights &Opportunities, ex rel Pamela Hodge v. State of Connecticut, Department of PublicHealth, CHRO No. 9710032, October 6, 1999 (complainant was awarded promotionwithout having to interview for position).The eligibility lists expire every two years and the eligibility list created from theApril 28, 2007 exam would be due to expire in two years, approximately April 28, 2009or soon thereafter, unless the list was exhausted sooner. FF 4 and 8. The complainantshall have the option to take the next regularly scheduled captain exam or a captainexam administered between September 1 and December 31, 2008 (the ordered exam).If he chooses to take the ordered exam and he passes it, he shall be placed on thecurrent existing eligibility list and if he obtains the required score pursuant to the civilservice rules to be certified for appointment, he shall be placed on any subsequenteligibility lists. If he chooses to take the next regularly scheduled exam and he obtainsthe required score, placing him on the respective eligibility list and certifying him forappointment, he shall be placed on any subsequent eligibility lists. As a result, thecomplainant shall not be required to take any further captain promotional exams and heshall be appointed to the current or next available captain position without having toPage 44 of 49
interview with the fire commission. After taking either the ordered exam or the nextregularly scheduled exam and in the event there is not a captain position available, heshall be paid the difference in the captain salary and his current salary until a captainposition becomes available. If the complainant chooses not to take either the nextregularly scheduled captain exam or the ordered captain exam, but instead takes asubsequent captain exam and obtains the required score; he shall not receive theadvantages of: 1) being placed on subsequent eligibility lists without having to takesubsequent captain exams; 2) being awarded the next available captain position withouthaving to interview with the fire commission; and 3) being paid the difference of thelieutenant and captain’s salaries until a captain position becomes available.Additionally, the complainant testified that he lost sixteen days of vacation forhaving to participate in this litigation at the commission’s offices. Tr. 1151-52. Thecomplainant did not provide evidence as to the specific vacation days lost. Therespondent argued that the complainant provided no proof of the number of vacationdays lost and the presiding referee has no authority to award lost vacation days. R.Reply Brief, 18-19. However, the respondent did not provide evidence at the hearing torebut the complainant’s testimony regarding the sixteen days lost; instead, it attemptedto provide new evidence in its brief. R. Reply Brief, 19. The respondent contended thatseven days were used to meet with the commission’s staff both during the investigativeand public hearing processes. R. Reply Brief, 19. The respondent’s evidence will not beaccepted. I find from the record of the public hearing file, the complainant participatedat the public hearing office attending settlement conferences, a pretrial conference andthe public hearing on a total of approximately seven days. In addition, the commission’sPage 45 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 42: and further requiring the responden
Page 43: is an excellent candidate. FF. 3; T
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?