Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

it . — ~ A Case 1 :04-cv-01469-SLR DOCUm9D;£»6.fé;§: ygljiled 08/O3/2006 PGQB 1 of 2
A
, -

i _ _ STATE OF DELAWARE ` _
V ·‘ DEPARTMENT OE LABOR _
» Divss1ON OF INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS _
· 4425 NoRTR MARKET STREET ` TELER1-ioNE (302) 751-8204
· ' _ Wttmiustow, DELAWARE 19802 Q FAx·(3O2)7G1-550
i . . _ NOTICEOF REASONABLE CAUSE FINDING i I . 1
RE: Burris v. Richards Paving Inc. j State Case No.: 03061071
, 3 On May 9, 2003, Mr. Stanford Burris tiled a Charge of Discrimination against Richards Paving, i_
[jg The Charge of Discrimination is hereby incorporated by reference. 1 ‘ .
l S Reasonable Cause Finding: p . , V A 0
On April 30, 2004, the Departmentof Labor concludedits investigation and now tinds, based on 1
the following facts, that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the State
y Discrimination- Act has occurred. _ ` i
S . VI. Undisputed Facts: i . S
p 1. Charging Party applied for a Truck Driver position with Respondent on or about
A 04/03/03. · · A
2. Respondent had an interview with Charging Party where the interviewer and ‘ A _
· Charging Party attempted to communicate using both a CB radio and a cell phone in _i I
4 ‘ an attempt to find a reasonable accommodation to Charging Part)/’s disability. . A
, 3. Respondent did nothire Charging Party for this position. _ s A ‘ p
D · I1.: Disputed Facts: · y · - 0 i
· 1-. Charging Party states that the representative of Respondent stated Charging Party
» was not being hired because of his voice. Respondent further stated that Charging
Party could not be heard over the CB radio and therefore could not be hired as a
A Truck Driver. · ·
. · 2. Respondent claims that attempts were made at the interview to communicate with
Charging Party over the CB radio and cell phone and were unsuccessful.
1 1 A 3. Respondent states that there were no accommodations that could have been made for
‘ p Charging Party and of those accommodations, which could have been a possibility,
` A , they would have caused Respondent an undue hardship.
VIII. Resolution of Material F acts in Dispute: 4 .
» 1. Charging Party has currently been employed by a trucking company for a period of 6 D
months where he used and communicated with a CB radio successfully. -

{ » ·~ Case»1:O4-cv-01469-SLR Document 36-4 Filed 08/O3/2006 Page 2 of 2 ·
D . 2. Respondent was unable to demonstrate that there Vare no accommodations that could
have been made. . . . i C _ A
3. Respondent failed to provide evidence that the reasonable accommodations that could
_ V have been utilized would have caused an undue hardship. V
4. Respondent corroborated that in their business there is a limited amount of deliveries
` of their products that are delivered without complications and that these deliveries I
V C could be delivered by Charging Party. . ` · . _ . A ‘ t
IV. Resolutionzl V ` V U V ` ‘ V ‘ H
V 1. Charging Party met his burden of showing that he was discriminated against based on ‘
V · ‘ his disability. V . V ° _ . i ·
V A ` _The Charge of Discrimination, State Case No. 03061071 will be administratively processed and ‘ I
V i assigned to a conciliation officer in an effort to administratively resolve the complaint pursuant
· I to 19 Del. C. Section 712(c). . · V I
. I o ?; ¤/ V
. DATE i ~ MELINDA SHELTON V i ‘ .
‘ i i INVESTIGATOR . V I · I I
V I V LAB OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
DATE V . . i IECUTLER __ . .V ‘ . _
. V `A ‘ ' ‘ OR LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR