In December 2019, at 64 years of age, a fire department employee retired from his city employment with approximately 27 years of service credit, having worked the last 19 of those years as a fire prevention specialist (FPS) for the fire department (Department). A little over a year later, he filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH, now Department of Civil Rights) alleging city had failed to accommodate his knee disability and constructively discharged him because his workload had been increased to the point he was “eventually . . . unable to keep up with” it.
The FPS contended that he was constructively discharged based on evidence that: 1) he was assigned 600 annual inspections in 2017, 2018, and 2019, which he asserted were excessive as compared to other employees; 2) his supervisor made comments about retirement and said that the FPS job was for young people; and 3) other employees frequently asked him about retirement.
After receiving a right to sue letter, the FPS sued the city, asserting claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for discrimination on the bases of age and physical disability, and for failure to accommodate a physical disability.
The trial court granted the city’s summary judgment motion. The court rejected the discrimination claims because there was no triable issue as to whether the FPS had been constructively discharged or had incurred any other type of adverse employment action. The court found the FPS’s failure to accommodate claim was time-barred because he missed the deadline to file his administrative complaint for his 2017 knee injury. The FPS appealed.
On appeal, the FPS contended that there were triable issues as to his constructive discharge theory. The California Court of Appeal disagreed. The Court found the FPS failed to produce evidence that his work conditions were intolerable. For example, the FPS had admitted he was able to handle his workload and there was no evidence he was ever threatened with discipline for failing to complete his inspections. The court stated that no reasonable jury could find the comments about his retirement created an intolerable working condition.
The FPS also contended that his reasonable accommodation claim should go to trial because the city failed to accommodate him. The Court again disagreed. When the FPS returned to work following knee surgery in April 2017, he denied any need for accommodation, and did not seek or need any accommodation thereafter. The Court stated that the reasonable accommodation claim also failed because the FPS did not timely file his administrative complaint. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision in favor of the city.
Fire Prevention Specialist v. City (June 28, 2024, California Court of Appeal)