Atkins v. City of Los Angeles
B257890M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 13, 2017Background
- Five LAPD recruits (Atkins, Boss, Desmond, Lee, Orea) were injured during Academy training and placed in the Department’s "Recycle" light‑duty program rather than performing physical training.
- The Department historically allowed injured recruits to remain in Recycle until recovery; a 2008 Revised Recycle Policy and later budget/hiring pressures led the Department to limit Recycle assignments to six months (with limited POST extensions) and ultimately end the program.
- Plaintiffs were told to resign or be terminated when they could not promptly return to full Academy duties; all were separated and later sued under FEHA for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process.
- A jury found for plaintiffs on all three FEHA claims and awarded past and substantial future economic and noneconomic damages; the trial court also awarded attorneys’ fees. The City appealed.
- The Court of Appeal: (1) held insufficient evidence to support FEHA discrimination liability because plaintiffs could not perform essential recruit functions even with accommodation; (2) affirmed failure‑to‑accommodate liability because reassignment to continued Recycle placements (or similar City positions) was a reasonable accommodation given the Department’s past practice; and (3) vacated future economic damages (and attorneys’ fees) as speculative and remanded for a new trial limited to future economic damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs proved FEHA discrimination (able to perform essential recruit duties with accommodation) | Plaintiffs argued they were qualified because they could perform duties of positions to which they sought reassignment (Recycle/1014 jobs) | City argued plaintiffs were not qualified recruits because they could not perform essential physical functions of a recruit even with accommodation | Reversed as to discrimination: plaintiffs could not perform essential recruit functions; discrimination claim fails |
| Whether FEHA required reasonable accommodation by reassignment (including continued Recycle assignments) | Plaintiffs argued reassignment/continued Recycle placements or 1014 transfers were reasonable given Department practice | City argued pre‑probationary trainees are not entitled to reassignment and any continued Recycle placement would be unreasonable/undue hardship | Affirmed as to failure‑to‑accommodate: reassignment to Recycle or comparable positions was a reasonable accommodation here given prior policy/practice; City failed to prove undue hardship |
| Whether the City failed to engage in the interactive process | Plaintiffs argued City stopped interactive process by forcing resignations/terminations instead of continuing accommodation | City argued no open/vacant comparable positions existed, so process was not required to continue | Court did not reach merits because failure‑to‑accommodate ruling disposed of liability; verdict on interactive process not addressed further |
| Whether future economic damages were supported by substantial evidence | Plaintiffs relied on expert Karen Smith who projected police careers to retirement and calculated present value of lifetime earnings | City argued awards were speculative because plaintiffs had only completed limited Academy training and there was no evidence they would graduate, complete probation, or stay until retirement | Reversed on future economic damages: expert assumptions lacked factual support and awards were too speculative; new trial ordered limited to future economic damages (attorneys’ fees order vacated pending outcome) |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. State of California, 42 Cal.4th 254 (2007) (FEHA does not protect persons unable to perform essential job functions even with reasonable accommodation)
- Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles, 194 Cal.App.4th 757 (2011) (employer policy/practice of permanent light‑duty assignments can make such accommodations reasonable)
- Raine v. City of Burbank, 135 Cal.App.4th 1215 (2006) (employer need not create permanent positions or convert temporary assignments absent workplace precedent suggesting reasonableness)
- Lui v. City and County of San Francisco, 211 Cal.App.4th 962 (2012) (reasonableness of accommodation assessed in light of employer’s policy changes and practice)
- Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, 234 Cal.App.4th 359 (2015) (FEHA’s accommodation/reassignment requirements and interactive process principles)
- Toscano v. Greene Music, 124 Cal.App.4th 685 (2004) (future economic damages must be reasonably certain, not speculative)
- Piscitelli v. Friedenberg, 87 Cal.App.4th 953 (2001) (damages that are speculative or merely possible are not recoverable)
- Shiffer v. CBS Corp., 240 Cal.App.4th 246 (2015) (expert opinion is only as reliable as the factual foundation supporting it)
- Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, 13 Cal.App.4th 976 (1993) (front pay to retirement may be supported where plaintiff’s long tenure and trajectory make continued employment reasonably certain)