Groton — The City of Groton is asking a judge to decide an age discrimination lawsuit filed by a longtime former employee.

The city filed a motion on March 28 for summary judgment — which seeks to have a judge decide a case without trial — in the employment discrimination complaint filed by Michael F. Patrick, a former laborer in its Public Works Department.

Patrick, 58, filed an age discrimination complaint on Nov. 13, 2014, in New London Superior Court, saying he was passed over for jobs that the city later filled with younger people.

James N. Tallbert, the attorney representing the city, argued that Patrick left his job with public works voluntarily, and later applied for four city jobs he was not qualified for.

Since 2011, the city has hired 43 people, 22 of whom were over age 40 at the time of hire, Tallbert wrote in his motion for summary judgment.

But Morris J. Busca, Patrick's attorney, wrote in his April 19 response that the city failed to comply with its own employment policies.

Busca said the city, Patrick's former employer of 28 years, turned him down for three entry-level positions saying he was unqualified.

“Remarkably, one of the positions he sought was the former position he held for 19 years, laborer with the Public Works Department,” Busca wrote.

The hiring manager for the laborer’s job told employees he didn’t want to hire Patrick for the position “because of his age and his heart condition” and that he “didn’t want to put him on a garbage truck,” Busca wrote.

Patrick worked from 1985 to 2004 as a laborer in good standing in the department.

In 2004, when the city created Thames Valley Communications, he moved from public works to the cable company, managed by Groton Utilities.

He was laid off by the city with about two dozen others in February 2013 when the city sold Thames Valley Communications.

He was rehired by the cable company’s new owners, but laid off again in September 2014.

At the time of the cable company sale, Groton City extended recall rights for "separating TVC employees," as some were longtime city employees.

It offered them opportunities for city jobs, based on seniority for positions that opened within 18 months from the date they were laid off.

Busca said Patrick applied for jobs as an apprentice lineperson, for two positions as a water distribution helper and for openings as a laborer.

The laborer job required a commercial driver’s license, which Patrick did not have, but it had been waived in prior years, he wrote.

The city hired a linesperson who was 31 years old, a water distribution helper who was 25 and two laborers, ages 23 and 26.

After Patrick was rejected, he sent an email to the city’s human resources director, saying, “I find it hard to understand why I would be required to have a (commercial driver’s license) to be hired when the last four current employees in the public works, including the foreman’s son, didn’t have (the license) when hired,” according to court records.

Tallbert said the city stopped granting exceptions to its requirement for a commercial driver’s license for all employees in 2011.

Groton City needed to save money and couldn't afford to train new employees and pay for their testing to earn the license, Tallbert wrote.

Of the 39 people who applied for the laborer vacancies, 14 did not have a commercial driver’s license and none was interviewed, he wrote.

The 14 included five applicants under age 40, meaning the requirement for the license was “indiscriminately applied,” Tallbert said.

d.straszheim@theday.com