Facts

In 2003, plaintiff Mohammed Horani worked as a civil engineer in the Public Works Agency for defendant the county of Alameda. In 2003 he was reassigned to the road section.

The plaintiff eventually returned to full-time medical leave and stopped working. He submitted a request for accommodation and compensation for his injuries, which defendant denied.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff brought an action against defendant claiming that his resignation amounted to constructive discharge. He alleged defendant retaliated against him for whistleblowing. Further, defendant violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the EEOC guidelines and defendant's own policies and procedures, by discriminating against him based on his disability.

The plaintiff contended that while he was employed with defendant, plaintiff frequently reported the fraudulent and unethical activity of his supervisors. Consequently, he suffered retaliation. His immediate supervisor instructed him to falsely notify the California Transportation Commission that the environmental studies relating to one of the projects had been completed, and state funds could be received for the project. As a result of plaintiff's refusal to do so, plaintiff’s supervisor submitted the false information. The plaintiff then told another one of his superiors of his supervisor’s actions. With regard to another project, plaintiff reported his supervisor’s attempt to submit false cost estimates. In retaliation for reporting the actions of this immediate supervisor and other supervisors, plaintiff was denied promotions and transfer requests. Further, when plaintiff returned from a medical leave due to his depression, his workload was not comparable to his new hours.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the plaintiff’s immediate supervisor did not partake in any unethical or fraudulent activity. Further, the plaintiff could not meet the standard for proving a whistleblower retaliation claim. No adverse employment action was taken against plaintiff. The promotions and transfers sought by plaintiff were awarded to the most qualified employees.

Further, the defendant accommodated the plaintiff’s disability. The defendant evaluated plaintiff’s job duties to determine how, per his doctor’s recommendations, to place him in a less stressful job. The defendant concluded that plaintiff was capable of performing all of his job duties if he worked under a different supervisor to lessen his stress level. Accordingly, the defendant offered the plaintiff a position in another department, which the plaintiff declined.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded $320,000. Defendants made a C.C.P. offer of $195,000 with an indication of more. Plaintiff rejected the offer and increased his demand to $480,000.

Specials in Evidence

$350,000

Damages

The plaintiff claimed $500,000 to cover damages for past and future emotional distress, and $350,000 in past wage loss.

Injuries

According to plaintiff, the retaliation caused him to have major depression, which defendant failed to accommodate. As a result, plaintiff contended, he was forced to resign. According to defendant, plaintiff continued as an employee on leave without pay.

Result

The jury found for defendant on the issue of liability.

Other Information

Plaintiff claimed past and future wage loss of between $1.2 million and $1.8 million, but the judge ruled he was not entitled to future damages.

Deliberation

1.5 days

Poll

12-0 (whistleblower retaliation), 9-3 (disability accommodation)

Length

six weeks