Martin Spann v. City of Los Angeles, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive
Published: Oct. 3, 2015 | Result Date: Jul. 24, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 2:14-cv-01751-AB-AGR Summary Judgment – Defense
Court
USDC Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Douglas D. Winter
(McNicholas & McNicholas LLP)
Matthew S. McNicholas
(McNicholas & McNicholas LLP)
Defendant
Daniel P. Aguilera
(Office of the City Attorney)
Michael N. Feuer
(Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney)
Shaun D. Jacobs
(Office of the City Attorney)
Facts
Martin Spann was a police officer employed by the City of Los Angeles, reaching the rank of Sergeant II at the time of his retirement in April 2014. He was also a member of the U.S. Army Reserves and was required to take off one weekend a month and/or other various days for military reserve duties.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Spann contended that he was subjected to harassment at work based on his rank and service in the military. Various supervisors allegedly made harassing comments about his reserve military service, including questioning whether he really needed to take time off for his reserve commitments and mocking him by calling him "Colonel." An article was also published in a police union publication that allegedly joked about his service as an officer because of his frequent absences for his military service. Spann alleged he was discriminated against, harassed, and subjected to adverse employment actions for his military reserve service and for otherwise exercising his rights under the Uniform Servicemembers Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Spann was placed on stress-related medical leave and never returned to work.
Plaintiff sued the city for discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment in violation of the Uniform Servicemembers Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, and whistleblower retaliation in violation of California Labor Code Section 1102.5.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The City of Los Angeles denied any wrongdoing and asserted various affirmative defenses.
Result
The only issue before the court was the hostile work environment claim, after the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the discrimination and retaliation claims pursuant to Fed. R. 12(b)(6). The court granted summary judgment for the city, concluding that Spann failed to establish a triable issue of material fact that the alleged harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment, or in the alternative that the city would be liable for such harassment.
Other Information
FILING DATE: March 10, 2014.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390