A probationary police officer was injured while investigating a traffic collision. He was off work for two weeks. He returned with discomfort in his spine and leg, and various work restrictions, including: no standing, walking, sitting, or bending at the waist for more than 20 cumulative minutes; no lifting, carrying, pushing or pulling anything more than five pounds; and lying down for 20 minutes each hour. The officer was using crutches at the onset of his injury. The City could not reasonably accommodate the work restrictions and placed the officer on temporary total disability leave.
While the officer was on leave, the city received information that the officer might be playing in a basketball league. The City investigated the officer for possible fraud. The investigator found that the officer was walking without his crutches, carrying heavy items while walking back and forth, and was climbing a chain link fence. When the officer sought to return to work, the City notified him that he was being released from his probationary position because he participated in activities that were inconsistent with his work restrictions.
The officer then sued the City for violating the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The officer alleged the city terminated him because of his disability, and in retaliation for his request for reasonable accommodation. He further alleged the City failed to: accommodate him; engage in the interactive process; and prevent discrimination and retaliation.
The City moved for summary judgment arguing that it had a legitimate reason to fire the officer due to the results of the fraud investigation. The City further argued the officer could not prove at least one element of each of his causes of action. The trial court granted the City’s motion.
On appeal, the officer argued that several triable issues of material fact existed that should have prevented the trial court from granting the City’s motion. The California Court of Appeal sided with the City, concluding that the trial court correctly dismissed the case.
The appellate court concluded that the officer did not raise a triable issue as to his causes of action for discrimination, retaliation, or failure to prevent discrimination or retaliation because he did not have evidence that his disability played a motivating role in his termination. Also, the officer did not demonstrate a triable issue that the City’s reasons for his termination were pretextual.
The officer relied on a case that did not apply to his situation on his failure to accommodate claim. The officer could not raise a triable issue as to his cause of action for failure to participate in the interactive process because city provided the officer with leave as an accommodation. Finally, the officer did not identify any other reasonable accommodations that should have been provided to him.
Police Officer v. City (June 28, 2024, California Court of Appeal)