Sacramento Firefighter Pushed To Early Retirement, Part 6 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.)

The defendant claims that the two discriminatory acts identified above occurred prior to June 10, 2004, and are thus not actionable. Specifically, the defendant contends that plaintiff was sent to a fitness for duty evaluation on February 26, 2004, and that an involuntary retirement application was filed on April 26, 2004. Unfortunately for the defendant, that doesn’t tell the whole story. On August 10, 2004, Mr.Carter was re-evaluated by his treating physician, and released to be returned to work without restrictions. The release indicated that Mr.Carter’s episode of Major Depression was in complete remission. Critically, the next day, on August 11, 2004, the City sent Mr.Carter for a fitness for duty evaluation. That date is well within one-year of the filing of the DFEH charge, which was filed on June 10, 2005.

Moreover, when Mr.Carter objected to attending the August 11th evaluation, which was scheduled for August 17th, the City solicited a follow-up fitness for duty evaluation on Mr.Carter from Dr. Stephanie Z.. That follow-up fitness-for-duty report was issued on September 4, 2004. Again, this date is well within one-year of the June 10, 2005 DFEH charge.

It should also be noted that although the City submitted an involuntary retirement application for consideration on April 26, 2004, that application was pursued and pending from April 26, 2004 all the way until January 20, 2005. Thus, a discriminatory and retaliatory retirement application was actively pursued both before June 10, 2004 (the one-year point) as well as after June 10, 2004. That means that the retirement application, which the jury clearly found was an act of retaliation and disability discrimination, was actively pursued by the City well into the one-year statutory period.

The City had the unfettered power to revoke that application at any time, but chose not to do so, despite what the jury found were discriminatory motives. Given the jury’s verdict, the act of pursuing that retirement application into the one-year statutory period was, by definition, a discriminatory and retaliatory act.

The evidence is clear: the jury had unambiguous evidence of disability discrimination that and retaliation that occurred within one-year of the June 10, 2005 DFEH filing. (See Part 7 of 19.)

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

Contact Information