This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Harrassment
Age Discrimination

Brown v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Published: Aug. 13, 2002 | Result Date: Jul. 9, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC227464 Bench Decision –  $0

Judge

Emilie H. Elias

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Mindy S. Bish
(Bish Law APC)


Defendant

Daniel J. Lowenthal


Facts

The plaintiff's complaint alleged causes of action for harassment and retaliation. At trial, the plaintiff argued that
the action was also based upon "failure to accommodate".
Counsel for the defense asked the court not to consider the "failure to accommodate" cause of action, even
though it was referenced in the body of the complaint, because it was not specifically identified as a cause of
action in the complaint.
The court allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of this allegation.
The plaintiff, a white male truck driver, employed by the Department of Water & Power, underwent quintuple
bypass surgery on June 10, 1998. He returned to work on July 29, 1998.
Near the time of his bypass surgery, he received a limited temporary appointment to the position of Equipment
Operator. This position paid $553 more monthly than the position of truck driver. The temporary position
ended in January 1999 and he reverted to the position of truck driver.
On March 8, 1999, the plaintiff was offered a regular appointment to the position of Equipment Operator.
He resigned from this position on May 20, 1999. He worked again as a truck driver from May 20, 1999
through May 31, 2001. On June 1, 2001, the plaintiff left work and began receiving disability benefits. These
benefits ended on Nov. 18, 2001.
The plaintiff attempted to put on evidence of damages for the period of July 1998, through November 2001.
The Court agreed with the defendants' argument that the Court only had jurisdiction over
the period of March 1999, through May 1999, because that was the only period that the plaintiff
specified in his DFEH complaint.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $50,000 on April 10, 2002 after the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied. According to the plaintiff, the defendants offered $5,000 before the hearing on the motion for summary judgment and a waiver of costs prior to trial. According to the defendants, nothing was offered.

Result

BENCH DECISION

Other Information

The defendant's Motion for judgment was granted after the plaintiff rested.

Length

three days


#123971

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390