In 2011, a city firefighter who worked in a paramedic assignment was diagnosed with a “physical disability, mental disability, or protected condition.” In 2016, the fire chief removed him from his paramedic assignment. In 2020 and again in 2021, the firefighter asked for, but was not reinstated to, that assignment.
In January 2022, the firefighter sued the city. He claimed the following violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): disability and age discrimination; failure to accommodate his disability; and failure to engage in the interactive process. The firefighter claimed the city regarded him and/or treated him as having or having had a “physical disability…’” since 2011. He further alleged that age and disability discrimination occurred when he was removed from his paramedic assignment in 2016, and that the discrimination continued in 2020 and 2021 when he unsuccessfully sought reinstatement to that assignment. The firefighter, however, did not allege: specific evidence of age discrimination; or that he asked for a reasonable accommodation.
The city filed multiple demurrers and motions to strike. The city’s demurrers were sustained, but with leave to amend. The firefighter then filed a third amended complaint (TAC) in July 2023. This time the superior court sustained the city’s demurrer without leave to amend. The court dismissed the entire case because the firefighter: did not meet the then-existing one-year FEHA statute of limitations to file his administrative complaint; failed to state causes of action for age or disability discrimination; and violated the sham pleading doctrine by amending his complaint to delete prior admissions without explanation.