LAPD retaliates against lieutenant who requests accommodation after on-the-job injury. $4.3M. Los Angeles County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  On Feb. 10, 2015, plaintiff underwent a spinal fusion surgery for a back injury sustained on his job with the LAPD. Plaintiff claimed that in the weeks after his surgery, his commanding officer pushed him to come back to work full-duty, telling him that they would "find a light duty accommodation for you."  Plaintiff returned to work, expecting the department would find a light duty accommodation for him. 

  As weeks and months went by with plaintiff repeatedly asking for the accommodation, none was given. Finally, when the specific light duty position that plaintiff had originally been promised was given to someone else, plaintiff immediately complained to his commander that such was a refusal to accommodate, and discrimination because he had asked for an accommodation. From the moment that complaint was made, plaintiff claims he underwent five years of "we'll teach you a lesson" treatment, which included multiple, short-term involuntary transfers around the department, marking him as a “problem child” who was not promotable. 

  At one point, plaintiff was told that if he did not get on board, that his wife's career (who was also an LAPD officer), would be in jeopardy. When plaintiff’s wife discovered that command staff had kept a secret file on plaintiff and plaintiff filed an internal complaint, plaintiff was put in the “penalty box,” which was a cubicle in the corner of a room, for 18 months with no subordinates, despite being a Lieutenant, no duties, and having to take orders from a civilian who ranked below him.

  After more than three years of adverse actions, including being passed over dozens of times for promotion, and after exhausting every possibility to avoid litigation, plaintiff filed this case. As a result of the conditions he was subjected to, plaintiff testified he would retire early, forgoing several years of salary and pension vesting.

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  That after plaintiff was injured on duty and required surgery, the defendant police department failed to accommodate his disability and failed to engage in an interactive process in violation of FEHA. That after plaintiff reported that he was not accommodated and was being discriminated against on account of his disability, he was retaliated against in violation of FEHA.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Defendant contended it subjected plaintiff to adverse employment actions for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons.