Kenneth Adams v. City of Glendale
Published: May 18, 2002 | Result Date: Feb. 6, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC177934 Bench Decision – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Gary A. Dordick
(Dordick Law Corporation)
Defendant
Donna D. Melby
(Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP)
Facts
The case involved a motion in limine to sever and try affirmative defenses first. This was granted. A defense
verdict followed. The underlying facts involved a suit by the plaintiff police officer for race discrimination,
harassment and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. After an evidentiary bench trial,
Judge Ricardo Torres ruled in defendantÆs favor, indicating that the plaintiff had not exhausted the cityÆs
administrative remedies and that he was collaterally estopped from proceeding.
At trial, Judge Torres bifurcated the defendant cityÆs affirmative defense and considered whether plaintiff
police officerÆs Skelley hearing which resulted in an adverse finding against the plaintiff.
According to the plaintiff: The plaintiff contended that he did not elect the defendantÆs Civil Service
Commission process by the mere factor of invoking his due process rights under Skelley. The plaintiff
contended that the trial court erred when it ruled that the Skelley hearing was part and parcel of the defendantÆs
Civil Service Commission internal administration process and that plaintiff did not fully exhaust that avenue.
The plaintiff contended that the City of Glendale had an extensive history of racial discrimination in its police
department. The plaintiff and other African American police officers were subjected to constant harassment,
including cartoon pictures depicting African American officers as monkeys, gorillas and Ethiopians. The words
written on the cartoons were derogatory including frequent references to "niggers," "spiks," etc.
The plaintiff further contended that African American officers and other minorities were stereotyped as
indigent, irresponsible fathers and incompetent. The plaintiff also contended that City of Glendale had a pattern
and practice of placing African Americans officers into "performance improvement programs" then using that
as a pretext for terminating the officer. As a result, the plaintiff alleged that he was unlawfully discriminated,
harassed and retaliated against by the city.
According to the defendant: Defendant City of Glendale claimed that it terminated the plaintiff because he was
an incompetent police officer. The defendant did everything it could to assist the plaintiff to become a
competent officer, including placing him in two separate performance improvement programs.
The City of Glendale denied that it ever engaged in any unlawful employment practices directed at plaintiff.
The plaintiff challenged his termination by requesting a hearing before GlendaleÆs administrative hearing
officer. The plaintiff had several hearings with the hearing officer, at which time he made all of his claims of
unlawful employment practices. The hearing officer conducted his own investigation, and ultimately upheld the
termination. Rather than appealing the hearing officerÆs adverse determination by way of writ petition to the
superior court, or by seeking review from the Glendale Civil Service Commission, the plaintiff instead filed a
lawsuit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The City of Glendale moved to sever its affirmative
defenses of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and collateral estoppel.
The court granted the motion, and a bench trial was held on the issues of whether the
plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies, and whether he received a quasi-judicial hearing
before GlendaleÆs hearing officer. The court ruled that plaintiff did receive a quasi-judicial
hearing, and that his failure to overturn the hearing officerÆs adverse administrative decision
resulted in collateral estoppel which precluded his lawsuit. The court also held that the plaintiff
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff demanded $1 million. The defendant made no offer.
Poll
______- ______
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390