(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this workplace/sex discrimination case and its proceedings.)
To sum up plaintiff’s position, there are at least four independent reasons that support the jury’s determination that plaintiff filed a timely charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing:
1) The jury had evidence to find that actionable conduct occurred within one-year of the June 10, 2005 administrative filing with the DFEH. These acts included:
a) Sending Mr.Carter to a fitness for duty evaluation on August 11, 2004.
b) Soliciting a follow-up fitness for duty evaluation on September 4, 2004.
c) Pursuing what the jury determined was a retaliatory and discriminatory disability retirement application from April 26, 2004 through January of 2005, despite many opportunities to retract the application, and/or take acts that would potentially have eliminated the need for the Retirement Board to act.
d) Failing to accommodate Mr.Carter from April 26, 2004 (the date the retirement application was submitted) all the way through the end of his employment in January of 2005. This included the City’s decision on July 12, 2004, to refuse plaintiff’s reasonable request to have his perceived mental disability and capacity to work evaluated by an independent physician. This also included the City’s ongoing failure to consider transferring Mr.Carter to a vacant position outside the Fire Department. It also included the City’s ongoing failure to consider extending Mr.Carter’ medical leave rather than moving forward (unnecessarily) with a retirement application that the jury determined was discriminatory and retaliatory. Finally, it included the City’s failure to allow Mr.Carter to return from a mental health leave of absence on multiple occasions, despite releases 23 from his physician on February 2, 2004, as well as August 10, 2004.
e) Failing to engage Mr.Carter in a good faith interactive process from April 26, 2004 all the way through the end of his employment in January of 2005. This included an ongoing failure to sit down with Mr.Carter to discuss accommodation strategies, which was an oversight that the Director of Human Resources admitted responsibility for on the record. This included the failure to engage plaintiff in good faith discussions regarding his request to have his perceived mental disability evaluated by an independent psychiatrist. This also included the City’s ongoing failure to inform plaintiff of potential job vacancies during the period between April 26, 2004 and January of 2005, despite the HR Director’s acknowledgment that taking such action might have saved Mr.Carter’ employment with the City. (See Part 3 of 19.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.