LAFD Prevails in Appeal of $1.1 Million Race Discrimination Verdict
The Los Angeles City Fire Department has prevailed in its appeal of a $1.1 million jury verdict granted in 2013 to an African American firefighter.
Jabari Jumaane sued the city in 2003 claiming race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation. Jumaane, now a 29 year veteran, pointed to a number of instances of discipline and transfers that occurred in the late 1990s and continuing into the early 2000’s as the basis for his allegations. The city argued that the acts which occurred over one year prior to his filing a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing were time barred from consideration by the statute of limitations.
At trial, a jury ruled against Jumaane, but the verdict was overturned based on juror misconduct. That ruling was upheld in 2010 on appeal. At his second trial in 2013, Jumaane was awarded $1.1 million in damages. The city renewed its argument over the statute of limitations asking for a judgment not withstanding the verdict. From the ruling:
- The City argued that the evidence of events that occurred before April 16, 2001, was not part of a continuing violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.), and the evidence of events on and after April 16, 2001, was insufficient to prove disparate impact discrimination, harassment or retaliation.
The trial court denied the city’s motion and the city appealed. In a 20 page ruling issued today, the California Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District agreed with the city. From the ruling:
- It appears that almost all the events that plaintiff describes as harassment took place before 2000.
- The only evidence to which plaintiff refers within the limitations period is one reference to “the unwarranted discipline.”
- As we have seen, plaintiff served a 10-day suspension in 1999, which is outside the limitations period.
- On February 15, 2001, the Department imposed a 15-day suspension which plaintiff served April 16 through April 30, 2001.
- A disciplinary suspension does not constitute harassment under FEHA as a matter of law.
- In sum, there is no substantial evidence of harassment within the one-year limitations period.
- There Is No Substantial Evidence to Support a Claim of Retaliation for Plaintiff’s Complaints About Race Discrimination or Harassment Within the Limitations Period
- The judgment is reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Appellant. Appellant City of Los Angeles is to recover its costs of appeal.
Here is a copy of the ruling: Jumaane v Los Angeles
1st. Regarding the “Time Limits” in this case, it is very informative.
2nd. Regarding the Plaintiff’s complaints, that is something else.
The Phrase from the Movie “All That Jazz”
“He became the Numero Uno Game Player”… comes to mind.
Since I never had the opportunity to file for the 1985-‘6 LAFD FF’s examination (due to a consent decree that you had to be a resident of the city) I feel he took a FF’s position and later because he went in to the Inspection Bureau ( this is done as part of a “Career Development” rotation or chose to go in to the assignment voluntarily) got “Lazy” and decided to use the on going internal racial under current to “Hide” his laziness as cover.
I am readily aware of the issues regarding Race and Sexual harassment in the 1980’s-90’s era LA City FD, which while in 2015 appears to have been moderated, still exits.
Going back to the Plaintiff’s issues.While he did speak out about the “Inequalities” that existed at that time and felt the he was subsequently “Targeted” It can be seen that he was given “Adverse Action” regarding failure to provide adequate documentation for his two weeks off between assignments, and failure to report for duty at the Brush Task Force. (His duties would have probably been part of Vegetation/Brush removal, pre- planning for possible fire response into the high hazard areas and not necessarily for active fire response).
Once again he is “insubordinate” in his next assignment to the “HAU” and then receive discipline for his actions in this case.
Note: Both times he was given a “Skelley” hearing, which is a pre-emptory for discipline up to an including Termination and “waived” his “Board of Rights” hearings, (which is the LAFD internal disciplinary Board “tribunal” for disciplinary actions).
Then he files his Court claim, saying the LAFD was “Discriminatory” against him.
Whether that is true or not, He “Gave” them ample reason to question his ability to do his job, by not following the job description he was in and not keeping the required inspection “logbook”, or taking his City vehicle home as per his job assignment.
He essentially “Brought the house down on top of himself” by his own actions and the under the “Guise of ‘Discrimination'” he says he wants “Relief”.
Time frames.
Some of the “claims” occurred before the California “Firefighters Bill of Rights ‘F-BOR'” came in to existence and holding the specific “Window” of the one year period of “no-discrimination” had taken place a good application.
Finally it can be seen that when he needed to provide “substantive documentation” for his claims he would or could not provide it.
Again hurting his claims.
In the end he requested a transfer out of the Inspection Bureau.
In conclusion;
I am readily aware that the LA City FD, still has issues regarding Women and Minority firefighter in 2015 similar to that of the 1980’s-’90’s and its a “on-going”.
Plaintiff, spoke up about the issues and then felt he was “Targeted” yet, over the years he also showed he did not perform sufficiently in assigned job duties and then as a result of his inadequate/non-performance of them, received disciplinary
sanctions appropriate to them.
In the end, plaintiff requested a transfer out of the inspection bureau.
For him to gain financially for his own “Ineptness” is Wrong and was a Waste of the Courts time.