 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hogan v. City and County of San Francisco10/19/2005
o give me an answer simply saying that I was not working in the field and that was out of his jurisdiction." Hogan also maintains that, at all relevant times, his "permanent assignment" was a field position, and that it was the "custom" of the Department to grant requests for vacation pay without requiring a written request. Hogan contends his health continued to deteriorate throughout the year 2000 because the Department refused to allow him to return to work, refused to communicate with him and denied him the benefits of his job. He maintains that he suffered additional stress in October 2000 when he received notice that his health insurance was going to be cancelled for non-payment.
Hogan does not dispute that he began to collect vacation pay in January 2001, and that on October 9, 2001, all remaining vacation and compensation time balances were paid to him. Hogan also concedes that he did not experience any period without health coverage.
D. Hogan's Termination
On December 20, 2000, Hogan called 911 and was connected to the CECC. During the recorded telephone conversation, Hogan threatened to kill Goodin and Goodin's children. Thereafter, the acting chief of the Department filed a formal complaint against Hogan for violating Department rules and regulations by making the threats against Goodin. After an evidentiary hearing, during which Hogan was represented by counsel, the Fire Commission determined that Hogan's employment should be terminated.
The Fire Commission made several findings of fact to support its determination including that: (1) Hogan violated Department Rules and Regulations by making the threats against Goodin and his family; (2) Hogan's assignment to the CECC was within the chief's discretion and was not grievable; (3) Hogan did not demonstrate he had a medical necessity requiring a transfer to another position.
Hogan's employment was terminated on August 23, 2001. On November 13, 2001, Hogan filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the Commission's decision. Hogan's writ petition was denied and he elected not to appeal.
E. The Present Action
According to his appellate brief, Hogan filed his original complaint in this action on September 4, 2001. The earliest pleading included in Appellant's Appendix is Hogan's third amended complaint, filed August 5, 2003. Hogan alleged three causes of action: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) discrimination in employment because of a disability or medical condition (Gov. Code, § 12940); and (3) retaliation in violation of the California Family Rights Act (Gov. Code, § 12945.2).
The City moved for summary judgment or in the alternative for summary adjudication. On March 23, 2004, the Honorable James L. Warren filed an order granting summary adjudication as to Hogan's disability discrimination and retaliation claims. In reaching this determination, the court gave collateral estoppel effect to several factual findings made by the Fire Commission. However, the court denied the City summary judgment because it found that Hogan's declaration regarding the manner in which the Department handled his requests while he was on leave raised a triable issue of fact as to the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Trial was set for March 29, 2004. On March 24, the City filed a motion in limine to exclude all evidence. The basis for the motion was that the emotional distress claim, Hogan's only remaining cause of action, was preempted by the Workers' Compensation Act and barred as a matter of law. On April 14, 2004, the Honorable Donald S. Mitchell granted the City's motion, dismissed the case and enter
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|