Facts

In 1999, Anthony Carrillo became employed by Orange County in the Auditor-Controller Dept. From when he was hired until August 2005, Debra Lakin supervised Carrillo. Lakin gave Carrillo consistently excellent performance reviews and he was awarded promotions, merit-based raises, and accolades.

In March 2005, Carrillo obtained from his treating psychologist a letter advising his employer that he should be afforded every reasonable accommodation, including a modified schedule permitting him to attend weekly group psychotherapy meetings, as he was undergoing treatment for his depression. Carrillo gave this letter to Lakin who, in turn, gave it to her supervisor, Mary Fitzgerald. It was disputed whether Fitzgerald notified the Human Resources Dept.

In August 2005, while working as a Senior I Accountant, the county decided to transfer Carrillo to the SSA Accounting Dept. where he was placed under the direct supervision of Espi Garcia. The Auditor-Controller Dept. frequently rotates its personnel among the various agencies and positions. The decision to rotate Carillo was in part motivated because this department was set to begin utilizing a new computer system and in part because the county wanted to "test" Carillo to see if he was ready for promotion to a management-level position. As such, in his new position, Carillo was given great responsibilities, including additional supervisory duties.

From the outset, Carillo could not cope with the added responsibilities, the increased workload, the overtime hours, the change in his work schedule, and his supervisor's overbearing management style. In fact, Carrillo and Garcia never had a good working relationship.

On Jan. 13, 2006, Carrillo was called into Garcia's office. Garcia accused Carrillo of intentionally ignoring her correspondence, failing to finish status reports in a timely manner, and working overtime without prior approval. Carrillo contacted Garcia's supervisor, Bill Castro, and the Human Resources Dept. about the incident. Specifically, Carrillo requested a transfer.

On Feb. 22, Carrillo was placed on medical leave by his psychiatrist, Dr. Scott Ispirescu. The leave lasted until April 10. When he returned, it was under the specific direction that he work no overtime hours. On Sept. 15, Carrillo was again placed on medical leave by his psychiatrist and therapist, Joshua Tann.

On Oct. 16, Carrillo filed a complaint with the Orange County EEO Access office alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation and mental condition. The county investigated and determined that he was not subjected to discrimination. On Dec. 11, Carrillo filed a complaint with the California Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing, echoing his earlier allegations of discrimination. Carrillo was given a right-to-sue notice.

Carrillo was authorized to return to work on Dec. 22. At that time, Ispirescu recommended that Carrillo be reassigned to a different department. The county did not act on the recommendation, however. On Jan. 22, 2007, Carrillo filed suit against the county for discrimination.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Carillo contended that the county failed to reasonably accommodate his mental disability, failed to engage in the interactive process, and retaliated against him for disability discrimination. Although the Auditor-Controller Dept. routinely rotated employees to other positions, the county refused to reasonably accommodate Carillo by reassigning him and insisted that he remain in his new job where he continued to struggle and fail due to his mental illness. Moreover, despite its own policies, the county refused to engage in a good faith interactive process to determine whether there were vacant positions for which Carillo was qualified and could perform with or without a reasonable accommodation. Instead, the county ignored Carillo's mental illness, labeled him a problem employee, refused to transfer or reassign him or modify his duties in any manner.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
According to defense counsel, the county claimed Carillo was a substandard employee once transferred into the position under Garcia which included more responsibility, greater duties of supervision and more accountability. Carrillo failed repeatedly to meet important year end accounting deadlines and was insubordinate with his supervisor. The county claimed he offered no alternatives for accommodation of his alleged disability other than transfer from his supervisor. The county's practice, it argued, was to not transfer substandard employees until they brought their job performance to a standard level.

Damages

Carrillo sought to recover past and future wages, medical costs, damages due to emotional distress. Additionally, Carillo sought a mandatory injunction compelling the county to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process to determine an effective reasonable accommodation for him.

Injuries

Carrillo claimed to have suffered emotional distress.

Result

The jury returned a Special Verdict form in favor of Carillo, awarding him $98,448 in economic damages, $78,658 in non-economic damages, $246,060 in attorney fees, and $18,713 in costs. The court then granted Carillo's motion for injunctive relief and ordered the county to engage in a good faith, interactive process. Regarding the claim of disability discrimination, the jury found that Carillo did have a qualifying mental disability, which the county was aware of; however, the jury also found that Carillo could not have performed the essential job duties and that the county's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation was not a substantial factor in causing Carillo's harm. Regarding the interactive process claim, the jury found that Carillo was harmed by the county's failure to engage in the requested, interactive process to determine effective reasonable accommodations. Regarding the retaliation claim, the jury found that the county did not engage in conduct that, taken as a whole, materially and adversely affected the terms of Carillo's employement. The county appealed the judgment and award of attorney fees. Carillo filed a cross-appeal concerning the amount of fees awarded.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Jan. 22, 2007.