CHRO ex. rel. Lenotti v. City of Stamford - Connecticut Employment ...
CHRO ex. rel. Lenotti v. City of Stamford - Connecticut Employment ...
CHRO ex. rel. Lenotti v. City of Stamford - Connecticut Employment ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
July 11, 2005, the respondent granted a testing accommodation <strong>of</strong> <strong>ex</strong>tra time(1 ½ the usual amount) to complete the firefighter <strong>ex</strong>am for Neil Dennehy whohad a learning disability. <strong>CHRO</strong> Ex. 26.21. The complainant gave a letter dated October 25, 2002 with the Boller reportto Wirzbicki, formally requesting an accommodation for his disability to takethe captain <strong>ex</strong>am. Tr. 670, 1019-20; C. Ex. 2 and 4.22. In a letter dated November 18, 2002, human resources director WilliamStover denied the complainant’s request for an accommodation and hisreason for the denial was that the ability to quickly process information is anessential function <strong>of</strong> the current captain position and the <strong>ex</strong>am tests thatability. Tr. 658-60, 670; C. Ex. 9.23. On January 28, 2005, again, the complainant requested an accommodationto take the March 2005 captain promotional <strong>ex</strong>am. Tr. 63 and 1043; C. Ex. 3;Stip. 8.24. The complainant’s January 2005 accommodation request was for additionaltime (“time and one half”) to complete the <strong>ex</strong>am or for the <strong>ex</strong>am to be given inaudio form. Tr. 64; C. Ex. 3; Stip. 8.25. The complainant did not provide the respondent with Epstein’srecommendation letter and did not inform the respondent <strong>of</strong> his ADD. Tr.1043.26. In 2005, Wirzbicki contacted her current supervisor, Dennis Murphy, director<strong>of</strong> human resources, who contacted Chief McGrath regarding thecomplainant’s request. Wirzbicki provided Murphy with the complainant’srequest and the Boller evaluation. Tr. 63-65, 676-82; C. Ex. 7.27. Wirzbicki, with the advice <strong>of</strong> Murphy, denied the complainant’s request for anaccommodation on February 7, 2005. Tr. 119-20; C. Ex. 7-9; Stip. 9.28. No one from the respondent’s employ contacted the complainant to discusshis request for an accommodation. Tr. 1044-46. Murphy did not consult anypr<strong>of</strong>essionals <strong>ex</strong>cept for McGrath regarding this request in <strong>rel</strong>ationship to thecomplainant’s disability and his job duties. Tr. 64, 137-40, 170, 261-62, 681-90. Wirzbicki is not an <strong>ex</strong>pert in the area <strong>of</strong> learning disabilities as it <strong>rel</strong>ates toPage 6 <strong>of</strong> 49
Change language