Sacramento Fire Dept. Discriminated Against Firefighter, Part 8 of 19

(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.)

If the defendant believed Mr.Carter was permanently disabled as a firefighter, then it had an ongoing duty under the law to alert him to job vacancies and to attempt to place him in vacant positions outside the Fire Department. See See Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 935, 947; See Spitzer v. Good Guys, Inc. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1389; Jensen v. Wells Fargo (2000) 245 Cal.App.4th 245, 263; California Code or Regulations, Title 2, ยง7293.9(a).

The trial testimony is also clear that from April 26, 2004 through the end of Mr.Carter’s employment in January of 2005, the City failed to schedule an interactive process meeting to discuss accommodation strategies. This was an ongoing violation of the law that continued well into the one-year statutory period. Director Ezell conceded that this was an oversight and that had she engaged in the interactive process Mr.Carter’s employment might have been saved. She also conceded that instead of proceeding with the retirement application into the one-year statutory period, she could have retracted the application and instead granted Mr.Carter additional medical leave as an accommodation. Again, allowing a medical leave of absence for an employee to recover from a perceived disability is a form of reasonable accommodation that was continuously rejected by the defendant well into the one-year statutory period.

Additionally, Mr.Carter made good faith efforts to convince the City to retract its retirement application by making it clear that he wanted his employment preserved in some way. None of this worked, but it was reasonable for plaintiff to fight for his job to stave off the permanence of the City’s actions. It is abundantly clear that plaintiffs failure to accommodate and interactive process claims were premised on acts and omissions that occurred within one-year of the June 10, 2005 DFEH filing. (See Part 9 of 19.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information