 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mercer v. Rodriquez6/8/2004
ined that his claims were grievable. He claims that under department administrative directive 9.6, classification assignments are not grievable. The defendants argue that not only did the plaintiff fail to exhaust the remedies available within the department, but also that he failed to avail himself of the remedies afforded by the state commission on human rights and opportunities and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
We therefore examine the plaintiff's allegations of wrongdoing to determine the nature of his claims, which, in turn, will guide our identification of the administrative remedy or remedies the plaintiff was required to exhaust, if any. " he interpretation of pleadings is always a question of law for the court.... We have pointed out that he burden upon the pleaders to make such averments that the material facts should appear with reasonable certainty; and for that purpose [the pleaders] were allowed to use their own language. Whenever that language fails to define clearly the issues in dispute, the court will put upon it such reasonable construction as will give effect to the pleadings in conformity with the general theory which it was intended to follow, and do substantial justice between the parties. ... But essential allegations may not be supplied by conjecture or remote implication." (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cahill v. Board of Education, 198 Conn. 229, 236, 502 A.2d 410 (1985).
The plaintiff alleged that he is "a qualified individual with a disability who is mobility impaired and uses a walker and cane for ambulation.... Although mobility impaired the plaintiff can perform the essential function of the employment position he desires." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) In identifying the various defendants, he used two terms to allege their various responsibilities: inmate classification and work industries program.
In 2001, the plaintiff asked to be assigned to a clerical position in the marker shop. His application was denied because " 'inmates are not hired for specific positions within the Marker Shop, positions are filled as the need arises.' " The plaintiff again applied for a position in the marker shop, but was informed by two of the defendants " 'that the administration has concerns that may fall and injure [himself], particularly during inclement weather.' " The plaintiff assured these defendants that his walker and cane were sufficient to help him ambulate during inclement weather, and he informed them that "their concerns could not stand as the basis to deny participation in this program or activity." On one occasion, a defendant informed him that " 'the shop is not equipped for persons with disabilities.' " The plaintiff told the defendants that " 'he was not seeking any structural modifications or accommodations that would fundamentally alter the nature of the work program; and that participation in this work program was not predicated on whether the shop was structurally equipped for persons with disabilities.' "
In December, 2001, the plaintiff informed the defendant warden that the disabilities act provides that " ' o qualified inmate with a disability shall be discriminated against from participation in work programs. The Department shall make reasonable accommodation to the known disability of qualified applicants.' " The plaintiff underwent a physical examination that resulted in medical authorization for him to be assigned to the work program in the marker shop. The plaintiff learned that he was officially classified and assigned to the marker shop program. Other inmates were permitted to participate in the marker shop, but despite havin
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Connecticut Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|