Lloyd O'Neil v. City and County of San Francisco
Published: Nov. 30, 2013 | Result Date: Oct. 8, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: CGC-11-514739 Settlement – $185,000
Court
San Francisco Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
P. Bobby Shukla
(Shukla Law)
Stephen M. Murphy
(Law Offices of Stephen M. Murphy)
Defendant
Lawrence Hecimovich
(Mound, Cotton, Wollan & Greengrass LLP)
Elizabeth S. Salveson
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)
Experts
Plaintiff
Robert W. Johnson CPA
(technical)
Janet Robinson-Bryan
(medical)
Defendant
A. Jubin Merati Ph.D.
(technical)
Facts
Lloyd O'Neal, a sheet metal worker, was injured in a motorcycle accident in 1992 and needed to take disability leave because of an injury to his left shoulder. In 2000, he was medically cleared and he returned to work. In 2008, O'Neal applied for a position with the City of San Francisco as a Temporary Exempt As-Needed 7376 Sheet Metal Worker in the Dept. of Public Works. He interviewed for the position and was ranked highly among the candidates. The city made him a conditional offer of employment, and O'Neal accepted.
Shortly after, O'Neal took a required medical exam, where it was discovered that he could not fully raise his left arm. However, he informed the nurse that his condition did not limit his ability to do his job as a sheet metal worker. The city instructed O'Neal to request whatever accommodations he would need, but O'Neal repeatedly informed them that he did not need any.
In January 2009, the city withdrew its offer of employment, concluding that O'Neal was not able to do the job because of his medical limitations. O'Neal then sued the city.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
O'Neal contended that his physical disability caused the city to withdraw its offer of employment, claiming that therefore the city had committed disability discrimination. He also claimed that the city had failed to provide reasonable accommodation for his physical disability, and had failed to engage in the interactive process.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The city asserted various affirmative defenses, arguing that O'Neal had failed to state a claim and that the statute of limitations for his claim had already passed. The city also claimed qualified immunity, equitable defense, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that it had taken reasonable steps to remedy any discrimination. The city also claimed that O'Neal had failed to mitigate his damages and that he had failed to interact in good faith.
Result
The parties settled for $185,000.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390