Facts

Plaintiff Jamal Childs is an African-American and a police officer in the City of Burbank's Police Department.

CHilds filed suit against the City and the police department, alleging violations of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), based on race discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment, and violations of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights (POBRA).

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Childs' discrimination claim asserted he is African-American and was discriminated against in the terms and conditions of his employment based on race. Childs contended that he heard, second hand, that supervisors were told in a meeting that the "n" word had been used in the past and was not permitted. Childs further contended that his work was scrutinized more closely, false charges were filed against him, there was a failure to properly investigate harassment, and the City refused to promote him and instead attempted to terminate, demote or discipline him. Childs further contended that he was followed on daily routines, removed him from a position of authority, and given him difficult and demeaning assignments.

Childs alleged that other officers retaliated against him for filing complaints and grievances for harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Childs further asserted that the City failed to discipline offending officers.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
On the discrimination claim, defendants contended that Childs conceded in deposition that he was not discriminated against in terms of receiving employment promotions or benefits. The defense contended that he admitted he never applied for a promotion, and applied for only one special assignment, as a school resource officer (SRO), which he received. He also conceded that he received positive evaluations and the one time he was disciplined, he deserved it. The defense further contended that the only work monitoring he identified was by one supervisor whom Childs concedes engaged in the same conduct toward non African-American officers.

The defense argued that Childs had no facts showing severe or pervasive offensive conduct based on race that was so extreme it changed the terms and conditions of his employment. His primary evidence was inadmissible gossip by co-workers concerning stray comments that he did not hear himself. He heard no racial epithets and the comments he heard directly were years before he filed suit. The defense contended that the gossip he heard about the "n" word was that the chief had told supervisors in a meeting that it had been used in the past and that such conduct was not permitted. The defense contended that it is not harassment or a hostile work environment for a manager to advise supervisors of conduct that is not permitted.

On his retaliation claim, defendants claimed that Childs did not identify facts showing he suffered adverse employment action after engaging in protected activity. He conceded he did not engage in any protected activity until May 22, 2008, when he spoke within investigator doing a police department inquiry into an anonymous letter claiming discrimination in the department. He further conceded he suffered no retaliation after speaking to the investigator and that he experienced no retaliation after later speaking to other supervisors in July or October 2008 about similar matters.

The defense argued that Childs' claims for failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation required that he show discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, and that Burbank failed to prevent it. The defense contended that Childs identified no facts to establish discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, and conceded there were continuous policies and training by Burbank to prevent such unlawful activities.

Defendants alleged that the FEHA claims were also time barred because FEHA requires the pre-requisite filing of a DFEH complaint within one year of any wrongful conduct. Childs filed a DFEH complaint on May 27, 2009, which allowed him to claim FEHA violations based on events occurring on or after May 27, 2008. All events he reported were on March 22, 2008 and, therefore, barred as the basis for a FEHA claim. Childs admitted he witnessed no further incidents after the March 2008 meeting.

Defendants maintained that Childs' POBRA claim did not detail what factual theory he was pursuing. He admitted he had only one written reprimand on March 31, 2006, which he accepted without challenge because it was correct in view of his conduct.

The defense contended that the POBRA claim was also time barred because Childs was required to make a pre-requisite government claim asserting a POBRA violation before filing suit, and he failed to do so. Moreover, if his May 12, 2009 government claim had included POBRA allegations, he would be limited in his suit to asserting claims based on events occurring between Nov. 12, 2008 and May 12, 2009, during which he identified no POBRA violations.

Result

Summary judgment favor of City of Burbank.

Other Information

Childs' motion for new trial was denied.