Atkins v. City of Los Angeles
8 Cal. App. 5th 696
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Five LAPD recruits (Atkins, Boss, Desmond, Lee, Orea) suffered temporary injuries during Academy training and were placed in the Department’s "Recycle" light‑duty desk program while recuperating.
- Historically the Department allowed injured recruits to remain in Recycle until recovery or permanent disability; in 2008–2009 it adopted a policy limiting Recycle to six months (and later ended the program), citing POST two‑year training limits and budget/hiring freezes.
- The Department required injured recruits after the policy change either to obtain immediate medical clearance to return to the Academy, resign (with a promise of rehiring when healthy), or face termination; none obtained immediate clearance and all were separated (some constructively discharged).
- Plaintiffs sued under FEHA for (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to reasonably accommodate (including reassignment / continued Recycle placement), and (3) failure to engage in the interactive process; a jury ruled for plaintiffs and awarded past and substantial future economic and noneconomic damages; the City appealed.
- The Court of Appeal: affirmed liability as to failure to accommodate (because reassignment/continued Recycle was reasonable in light of the Department’s prior practice), reversed the discrimination verdict (plaintiffs could not perform essential functions of recruit/officer even with accommodation), vacated future economic damages (speculative) and attorneys’ fees, and remanded for a new trial on future economic damages only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were "qualified individuals" for FEHA discrimination claim | Recruits were employees entitled to FEHA protection; focus should be on ability to perform functions of positions sought (e.g., Recycle or 1014 transfer). | Recruits could not perform essential functions of a police recruit/officer at separation (physically unable even with accommodation) and thus are not "qualified" under §12940(a). | Reversed discrimination verdict: plaintiffs were not qualified to perform essential functions of a police recruit/officer even with accommodation, so no FEHA discrimination liability. |
| Whether FEHA requires reassignment/continued light‑duty for (pre‑probationary/probationary) trainees | FEHA covers probationary or pre‑probationary employees; reassignment or continued Recycle was reasonable when employer had a longstanding practice of doing so. | Department: trainees are like applicants/temporary employees and are not entitled to reassignment; also operational/POST rules and budget constraints justified ending Recycle. | Affirmed failure‑to‑accommodate verdict: probationary/pre‑probationary status does not bar FEHA reassignment; here continued Recycle was a reasonable accommodation given Department precedent and evidence supported plaintiffs’ qualification for those Recycle duties. |
| Whether employer satisfied/was excused from interactive process | Plaintiffs argued City failed to engage in timely, good‑faith interactive process to find accommodations. | City argued no open funded comparable positions existed and interactive process need not continue without vacancies. | Court did not decide interactive‑process claim because it affirmed on failure‑to‑accommodate grounds; trial court’s denial of nonsuit on this claim stands. |
| Whether future economic damages awarded were supported by substantial evidence | Plaintiffs’ expert projected career trajectories (academy completion, promotions, multi‑decade service, retirement) and calculated present value of lost earnings. | City argued projections were speculative given brief Academy exposure, no evidence plaintiffs would complete training, serve full careers or retire from LAPD. | Reversed with instructions to grant a new trial on future economic damages: awards were too speculative and unsupported by evidence of reasonable certainty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, 234 Cal.App.4th 359 (2015) (FEHA requires reasonable accommodation; reasonableness often fact question)
- Lui v. City and County of San Francisco, 211 Cal.App.4th 962 (2012) (employer policy change limiting light‑duty matters in reasonableness analysis)
- Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles, 194 Cal.App.4th 757 (2011) (employer practice of permanent light‑duty vacancies can make permanent accommodation reasonable)
- Green v. State of California, 42 Cal.4th 254 (2007) (prima facie FEHA discrimination requires ability to perform essential functions with or without accommodation)
- Raine v. City of Burbank, 135 Cal.App.4th 1215 (2006) (employer not required to convert temporary assignments to permanent absent workplace precedent)
- Furtado v. State Personnel Board, 212 Cal.App.4th 729 (2013) (definition of reasonable accommodation and qualified individual analysis)
- Swanson v. Morongo Unified School District, 232 Cal.App.4th 954 (2014) (probationary/untenured employees are protected by FEHA and may be entitled to reassignment)
- Quinn v. City of Los Angeles, 84 Cal.App.4th 472 (2000) (no FEHA accommodation obligation where employee was never qualified for the job from the outset)
- Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc., 13 Cal.App.4th 976 (1993) (long service and career trajectory support long‑term front pay awards)
- Toscano v. Greene Music, 124 Cal.App.4th 685 (2004) (future earnings recoverable only when reasonably certain; expert assumptions must be supported by facts)