Title: Charbonneau v. Gorczyk

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Charbonneau v. Gorczyk (2001-312); 176 Vt. 140; 838 A.2d 117

2003 VT 105

[Filed 07-Nov-2003]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 2003 VT 105

                                No. 2001-312

  John Charbonneau	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Orleans Superior Court

  John Gorczyk	                                 March Term, 2002

  Dennis R. Pearson, J.

  Matthew Valerio, Defender General, Seth Lipschutz, Prisoners' Rights
    Office, and Michal Mokryn, Legal Intern, Montpelier, for
    Plaintiff-Appellant.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Nicole Andreson,
    Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for Defendant-Appellee.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J.
            (Ret.), Specially Assigned (FN1)

        
       ¶  1.  AMESTOY, C.J.   Plaintiff John Charbonneau appeals a decision
  by the Orleans County Superior Court dismissing his claim against John
  Gorczyk, Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) for
  discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 
  Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that (1) plaintiff is
  not "disabled" under the ADA, and (2) if plaintiff is disabled, his
  requested modifications to accommodate the disability are unreasonable.  We
  affirm the court's decision that plaintiff is not disabled within the
  meaning of the ADA, and therefore we find it unnecessary to determine the
  reasonableness of plaintiff's requested accommodations.

       ¶  2.  The facts presented at trial were essentially undisputed.  At
  issue here is whether the facts support the trial court's legal
  conclusions. Our standard of review on questions of law is de novo.  State
  v. Pollander, 167 Vt. 301, 304,