Police Commission Sued Over Dismissal Of Officer

By Andrew Gorosko

A town police officer who was fired by the Police Commission in September 1998 has filed a federal lawsuit against the town seeking $1 million in damages and reinstatement as a patrolman.

In the lawsuit filed in US District Court, Thomas Candia, Jr, of Bridgeport alleges there was a conspiracy among the defendants to fire him because he suffers from the learning disability dyslexia.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are Police Commission members Robert Connor, Jr, James Reilly, Carol Mattegat, Charles Pilchard and former commission member William Meyer; former police chief James E. Lysaght, Jr; former police captain Owen Carney; and Detective Sergeant Henry Stormer.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants’ actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment to The Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Civil Rights Act.

On September 17, 1998, the Police Commission voted to fire Mr Candia after learned he violated the police department’s rules and regulations. The firing came at the end of an eight-hour open meeting at which the Police Commission presented evidence and Mr Candia and his attorney refuted the claims. The meeting was conducted in open session at Mr Candia’s request.

Police Commission members voted 4-0 in favor of termination, with Mr Meyer abstaining. Mr Lysaght recommended that Mr Candia be terminated.

The Police Commission considered a dozen charges made against Mr Candia involving three separate incidents. The commission found that Mr Candia made an untrue statement to the Police Commission regarding a traffic accident; that he left his patrol sector without the approval of a supervisor; and that he made an untrue statement to a sergeant, captain, and the police chief. The charges against Mr Candia involved disobeying orders, his truthfulness, and making disparaging comments to a supervisor. An allegation of sexual harassment was found to be unproven.

Mr Candia, who was 29 when fired, took his oath of office as a patrolman in January 1998. He was still on the police department’s one-year probationary period when he was fired.

Allegations

In the lawsuit, attorney John Coughlin, representing Mr Candia, states Mr Candia has dyslexia and is disabled, as defined by the terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In firing him, the defendants denied Mr Candia due process of the law and equal protection under the law, according to the suit. Mr Candia’s dyslexia interferes with his ability to spell and write, according to the court papers.

According to the suit, the Police Commission at a July 14, 1998, meeting alleged that Mr Candia’s performance as a probationary officer was deficient in writing police reports. The commission charged that the reports were grammatically incorrect, that they contained misspellings, and that Mr Candia had asked a citizen how to spell a word. Mr Candia then told commission members he is dyslexic and asked for accommodations for his problems with writing and spelling, according to the suit.

 Mr Candia then asked commission members for copies of records and information to which they were referring to allow him to intelligently respond. The commission refused to provide copies, thus denying Mr Candia a meaningful hearing, due process, and the right to confrontation and cross-examination as provided by the Fourteenth Amendment, according to the lawsuit.

The commission then ordered Mr Candia to provide information to substantiate his dyslexic condition, but those records had been purged by the schools which he had attended due to the passage of time, according to the lawsuit.  Mr Candia was undergoing testing by a clinical psychologist which would provide documentation to the commission on his condition, the suit adds.

The lawsuit alleges Mr Lysaght had an internal affairs investigation of Mr Candia conducted with the intent of terminating him as a police officer. That investigation and an ensuing Police Commission hearing which later resulted in Mr Candia’s termination “was pretextual and constituted unlawful discrimination of the plaintiff,” according to the suit.

“The initiation of an internal affairs investigation was with the intent to discharge the plaintiff, with the result of said investigation [being] pre-determined in an attempt to mask the actual reason for his discharge, i.e., the plaintiff’s dyslexia and learning disability,” according to the lawsuit. “The three charges against the plaintiff were untrue and part of a conspiracy to discharge the plaintiff arising out of his learning disability, dyslexia,” it adds.

Through the lawsuit, Mr Candia asserts that at the September 17, 1998, Police Commission meeting held to consider Mr Lysaght’s recommendation to fire Mr Candia, he was denied due process, equal protection under the law and a meaningful hearing under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 The defamatory charges made against Mr Candia were false and the result of a conspiracy to deny him employment, according to the lawsuit.

Through the lawsuit, Mr Candia seeks $1 million in damages; reinstatement as police officer; back pay, benefits and seniority; an order to prevent the defendants from discriminating against him on the basis of his dyslexia; an order requiring the defendants to provide reasonable accommodations for his learning disability; an order requiring the defendants to cover Mr Candia’s expenses for the lawsuit, including attorney’s fees; a trial of the case by jury; and other relief.