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
Disability Discrimination
Failure to Accommodate

William Maier v. City and County of San Francisco, Bridget O'Connor, and Does 1-20

Published: Jul. 17, 2020 | Result Date: Feb. 4, 2020 | Filing Date: Apr. 3, 2018 |

Case number: CGC-18-564070 Settlement –  $198,000

Judge

Garrett L. Wong

Court

San Francisco County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Tanya Gomerman
(Gomerman Bourn & Associates)

Maria Ann Bourn
(Gomerman Bourn & Associates)

Ashley N. Pellouchoud
(Gomerman Bourn & Associates)


Defendant

Erin Kuka
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)


Facts

Plaintiff William Maier was sworn into the San Francisco Police Department. He filed an employment lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco and his field training officer Bridget O'Connor.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged during his Field Training Program he was berated, belittled, and discriminated against O'Connor. Plaintiff contended O'Connor treated him differently because he had a hearing disability, and as a result he was harassed and forced to resign. Plaintiff contended he was unlawfully discriminated against because of his disability and that defendants failed to provide disability accommodations for plaintiff after he notified defendants of his disability. Additionally, Plaintiff contended defendants failed to engage in the interactive process which violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act and unlawfully retaliated against plaintiff. Lastly plaintiff contended he was discriminated against due to his age, which defendants failed to prevent, and further perpetrated through use of its employees involved in the training program.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions and contended their actions were not based on discrimination or retaliation. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims and asserted various affirmative defenses.

Result

The parties agreed to settle for $198,000.


#135091

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

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