Facts

In February 2003, defendant city of Oakland hired plaintiff Rosenbaum as a limited duration employee in the position of project choice manager in the city's Department of Human Services. At the time he began employment, the defendants knew they had at least three years funding for plaintiff's position.

In March 2004, the defendants converted plaintiff to a regular permanent employee in the same position. At the time the plaintiff was appointed to the regular full-time position, he was not informed that his appointment to that position was subject to any probationary period under the city's Civil Service Rules.

On April 1, 2004, the plaintiff informed the defendants that he had been diagnosed with Hepatitis C and would require extensive and lengthy medical treatment.

On June 1, 2004, the plaintiff began approved medical leave as a result of his treatment for Hepatitis C. During the time the plaintiff was on medical leave, the city hired a female employee to replace the plaintiff.

In March 2005, the plaintiff initiated discussions with the defendants about a date for his return to work and need for accommodations as a result of his physical disabilities occurring from his treatment for Hepatitis C. The plaintiff was told that defendants did not want him to return to work until his physicians cleared him to return without restrictions.

The plaintiff returned to work on June 27, 2005 without any accommodations made by defendants. On his return, he discovered that defendants had removed him from his private office space and placed him in an open cubicle. That same day, the plaintiff's supervisor gave him a letter claiming that she had concerns about the plaintiff's performance before he had begun his medical leave in June 2004 and informing him that he was subject to a 12-month probationary period that was to continue for another 10 months beginning with his return to work.

A few weeks after this, the plaintiff was given a highly critical performance review. After receiving the performance review, the plaintiff made complaints with the city's internal equal employment office that defendants had taken these actions as a result of his disabilities caused by Hepatitis C, his treatment for Hepatitis C, his need to take medical leave and his gender. These complaints were communicated to his supervisors.

In the last week of July 2005, the plaintiff's physician recommended that he reduce his work hours to 50 to 75 percent of a full-time schedule as soon as possible. The plaintiff then informed defendants of his physician's recommendation. The defendants insisted that plaintiff's position could only be handled by one full-time employee and refused to consider any other alternatives for modifying his schedule to accommodate his disabilities. Additionally, the plaintiff was told that if he was not able and available to work a full-time schedule, he would be discharged. Consequently, the plaintiff continued to work full-time without any accommodations.

As a direct of defendants' conduct and refusal to make accommodations, the plaintiff began suffering severe anxiety, depression, mental stress, emotional trauma, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and other physical and mental disabilities. On Nov. 8, 2005, the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist diagnosed him as too disabled to work due to fatigue, confusion, depression and anxiety connected with his disabilities and defendants' failure and continued refusal to accommodate his disabilities. The plaintiff's psychiatrist recommended that he be placed on medical disability leave until March 30, 2006.

After the plaintiff informed defendants of his psychiatrist's recommendation that he take medical leave, the defendants immediately began the process for terminating his employment. The plaintiff was then terminated effective Dec. 9, 2005.

The defendants characterized plaintiff as a probationary employee and he was thus not advised or afforded any right to appeal their dismissal by means of a full evidentiary hearing adjudicated by the city's Civil Service Board.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that under the city's Civil Service Rules, the plaintiff should never have been classified as a "limited duration" employee as he was hired for a position to exceed 12 months of employment. Therefore, at the time of his termination, plaintiff was a permanent public employee with vested property rights who could only be terminated for cause and had the right to a full due process evidentiary hearing.

The plaintiff also contended that defendants' actions were in violation of various sections of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act as they discriminated against plaintiff on account of his disabilities and gender, retaliated against him for taking medical leave and making complaints concerning their conduct and failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff's disabilities or engage in a timely, good faith interactive process for accommodation.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants contended that the plaintiff was never a permanent employee and therefore could be peremptorily discharged. The plaintiff's disability was not the reason for his termination and they otherwise met their obligations under the FEHA.

Injuries

Emotional distress and psychological distress.

Result

On April 26, 2007, a mediation was held before Mark Rudy, at which time the parties agreed to settlement pending approval of City Council. The City Council ratified settlement on Sept. 18, 2007 and dismissal of action entered on Oct. 23, 2007.

Other Information

FILING DATE: April 24, 2006.