CHRO: 0010273, Haley v. City of Hartford, Supplement to Final Decision

0010273, Haley v. City of Hartford, Supplement to Final Decision
0010273, Haley v. City of Hartford, Supplement to Final Decision

CHRO No. 0010273

EEOC No. 16AA01125


Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ex rel. : Mary Haley, Complainant

v.

City of Hartford, Respondent

March 12, 2003

SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL DECISION

On July 1, 2002, a final decision was issued in the above captioned matter. This supplement is being issued to clarify the amount of monetary damages awarded. Calculations are based upon the parties' Stipulation to Supplement the Record dated April 16, 2002 and exhibits including CHRO Ex. 35 and CHRO Ex. 37. Because complainant's co-worker Maria Perez ("Perez") was promoted to the position of administrative clerk in June 1998, her salary is used as the benchmark to determine the amount the complainant would have earned had she been promoted to the position of administrative clerk on September 13, 1998. Between September 13, 1998 and July 1, 2002 (the date of the final decision), Perez earned $126,236. The complainant earned $115,583.75, a back pay shortfall of $10,552.25. At the time of the hearing, the difference between what the complainant was being paid, $624.75, and what complainant should have been paid, $652, as represented by Perez's salary, was a shortfall of $27.25 per week.

Order

1. The complainant shall be instated into the position of administrative clerk with attendant salary, increments and benefits retroactive to September 13, 1998.
2. As a result of the complainant's reclassification to administrative clerk retroactive to September 13, 1998, the complainant shall be eligible to retire after twenty years of service, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement then in effect for the position of administrative clerk.
3. The respondent shall reimburse the complainant $2,574.14, representing the differential between the lump sum pension contribution amount due by the complainant as of September 13, 1998 ($6,542.49) and the amount paid by her as of August 27, 2001 ($9,116.63).
4. The complainant shall pay to the respondent $3,646.77, representing the differential between the weekly amount she actually paid into the pension plan ($2,105.95) between September 13, 1998 and August 27, 2001, and the weekly amount she would have paid had she been promoted to administrative clerk on September 13, 1998 ($5,752.72).
5. The complainant is awarded back pay from September 13, 1998 to July 1, 2002, the date of the final decision, in the amount of $10,552.25, representing the differential between what she would have been paid had she been promoted to administrative clerk on September 13, 1998 less the amount of wages she received from the respondent.
6. The complainant is awarded prejudgment interest on the award of back pay in the amount of 10% per annum, compounded annually, from September 13, 1998 to July 1, 2002 in the amount of $4,567.39.
7. Effective July 1, 2002, the complainant's salary shall be the salary she would have received had she been promoted to administrative clerk effective September 13, 1998.
8. The complainant is awarded postjudgment interest from July 1, 2002 to date of payment in the amount of 10% per annum, compounded annually, on her back pay award of $10,552.25.
9. The respondent shall cease and desist from engaging in any further discriminatory conduct, pursuant to General Statutes 46a-60.
10. The respondent shall not retaliate against the complaint and/or her witnesses, pursuant to 46a-60a(4).
11. Pursuant to 46a-54(13), 46a-54(14) and 46a-97, the respondent shall post, at each facility in conspicuous locations visible to all employees and applicants for employment, commission posters regarding non-discrimination.
__________________________
Hon. Jon P. FitzGerald
Presiding Human Rights Referee

c:
Ms. Mary Haley
Atty. Judith Meyer
Ms. Patricia Washington
Atty. Ivan Ramos
Atty. C. Joan Parker





Content Last Modified on 6/7/2006 11:13:07 AM