Police officer, whose long-established disability required him to be accommodated in a day-shift position, is transferred to a night-shift position in violation of his medical restrictions without any good-faith interactive process.
- Case Name: Vincent Albano v. City of Los Angeles
- Court and Case Number: Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 20STCV35354
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Monday, November 28, 2022
- Date Action was Filed: Monday, January 03, 2022
- Type of Case: Employment
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Maurice A. Leiter
Plaintiffs: Lou Vince, 59
Defendants: City of Los Angeles, a government entity; and DOES 1 through 100
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
- Gross Verdict or Award: $1,000,000
Attorney for the Plaintiff:
McNicholas & McNicholas LLP by Matthew S. McNicholas, Douglas D. Winter and Ashley E. Kim, Los Angeles.
Attorney for the Defendant:
Office of the City Attorney by Christopher Cadena and Casey Shim, Los Angeles.
Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):
John Chia, M.D.
Crescenzo Pisano, M.D., internal medicine.
Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Marianne Inouye, economics.
Lt. Craig Lally, Los Angeles.
Defendant's Technical Expert(s):
Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) Commander Jay Mastick.
LAPD member Brian Taft.
Facts and Background
Facts and Background:
In or around 2004, plaintiff, a Police Officer III, was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome due to work-related injuries, and was placed on light duty with work restrictions which allowed him to work day-watch hours only. In accordance with his work restrictions, plaintiff was assigned to the Detectives Unit.
In or around December 2018, plaintiff was notified that his position within the Detectives Unit was being eliminated, and that he would be assigned to the patrol desk working the 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. shift. Upon learning of this change, plaintiff raised the issue to his supervisors that the new position was in contradiction with his work restrictions and requested that his employer accommodate his restrictions. When his hours were not changed, he used his earned sick time until June 22, 2019 and then took retirement.
That plaintiff’s supervisors refused to accommodate his work restrictions and, as such, plaintiff was forced to use his earned sick time until June 22, 2019. When plaintiff ran out of sick time he was left with no option but to retire. Plaintiff alleged that the LAPD failed to engage in an interactive process to accommodate plaintiff’s disability.
That defendant did engage in an interactive process with the plaintiff in order to accommodate his disability.
Injuries and Other Damages
Disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, workplace harassment.
- Special Damages Claimed - Past Lost Earnings: $158,000
- Special Damages Claimed - Future Lost Earnings: $803,000