Updating our Jan. 18, 2007 post: “Connecticut’s Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities says that the city of Stamford violated anti-discrimination law because they wouldn’t give extra time on a promotion exam to David Lenotti. Lenotti is a fire lieutenant with attention deficit disorder.” [Excerpting coverage in the Apr. 15 Stamford Advocate*]:
The city defended the denial by claiming a fire captain, the position Lenotti sought, must be able to read and process information quickly at a fire scene. But state officials said the city never proved that was true, never consulted with disability rights experts and does not use a promotional test that actually measures how fast a candidate can read.
(Dave Statter, Apr. 20; Created Things, Apr. 16; decision in PDF format). More: Daniel Schwartz has more analysis (May 3): if you want a fire captain to be able to read quickly at emergency scene, gotta spell that out explicitly in the job description.
*An odd aspect of the Stamford Advocate article, preserved on GoogleCache: it quotes disability consultant Suzanne Kitchen making the very same comment, word for word, that we criticized her for making more than a year ago. Does Ms. Kitchen really repeat herself so precisely?
4 Comments
I read the decision, and it’s not quite as characterized. Several of the plaintiff’s co-workers testified that they were confident he could do the job. The fire department did not contest that the plaintiff’s disability was the reason he did not pass the test. Then, the fire department did not provide significant evidence that the test’s timing was sufficiently tied to actual performance.
I agree with you, generally, when you say that firefighters should pass standard tests. But the tests have to be based on something reasonable, not just gut feelings about what is required.
Ummm, Mr. Cooper, wouldn’t someone with ADD have trouble paying attention? That being the name of the disorder and all? That doesn’t sound like someone who should be directing a fire scene.
The ADA is the nice idea that we should give extra consideration to those who can contribute if given the extra but don’t you think there are limits? For example, would you really want someone with ADD flying your plane?
Can you imagine the lawsuits that would follow if a death occurred at a fire scene led by someone known to have difficulties? Do you think the very same co-workers currently defending our wannabe-captain might then be on the plaintiff side of those suits?
Mr. Cooper claims “Then, the fire department did not provide significant evidence that the test’s timing was sufficiently tied to actual performance.”
This is the Duke Power fallacy where the Supreme Court required specific tests for specific job slots. The problem comes from the fact that the specific tests are costly to develop, and, because they are calibrated on small numbers of workers, do not have the reliability of generalized tests. When tests are modified because a particular aspect is considered to be unrelated to actual performance, there is bound to be some dimmunition of the power of the test. Then there can be item by item attacks that eventually annihilate the test.
I looked at the decision a bit further in my blog. Its actually a pretty significant decision because it expands the reasonable accommodation analysis to learning and mental disorders.