LOS ANGELES – A coroner’s office investigator has tentatively settled his lawsuit in which he alleged the department failed to accommodate him for liver disease that progressed into cancer.
David Smith’s Los Angeles Superior Court complaint alleged failure to accommodate and to engage in the interactive process. On Friday, Smith’s lawyers filed court papers with Judge Armen Tamzarian notifying him of a “conditional” settlement in the case with the expectation a request for dismissal will be filed by Dec. 16. No terms were divulged and it was not immediately clear whether the accord is subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors.
In March, the judge denied a defense motion to dismiss the suit.
“Even if plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of his assignment as watch commander, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude defendant should have given him preference in assigning him to a vacant position in 2020,” the judge wrote.
Smith was hired in 1997 and since 2000 had the position of a supervising coroner investigator I, which is considered a rank of lieutenant, the suit stated. Since 2014, he has been assigned as a watch commander, one of multiple different assignments for department lieutenants, the suit stated.
Smith was diagnosed with end-stage liver disease in May 2018 that limits his ability to work, so two years later he asked for a different assignment because the stress of his work was worsening his health and hampering his ability to go to work, according to the suit, which further stated that the department “completely failed to engage in any interactive process.”
County attorneys maintained in their pleadings that the department “consistently engaged with plaintiff … to identify work assignments that would meet the work restrictions he identified as soon as plaintiff actually expressed the need for an accommodation.”
The office also consented to Smith’s requests for leaves of absence, a modified work schedule and assignments that temporarily allowed him to avoid performing some essential job functions in order to meet his work restrictions, the county lawyers further maintained.
Faced with the prospect of accepting a position that might mean a loss of status and a reduced salary, Smith twice had his doctor rescind the restrictions, reflecting his own failure to engage in the interactive process in good faith, the county attorneys alleged in their court papers.
Smith seeks an accommodation that eliminates some essential job requirements while retaining his rank and full pay, which the department is not required to offer, according to the county lawyers’ court papers.
In his suit filed in November 2022, Smith contended his multiple tasks include answering a high volume of calls, making assignments for investigators and managing departmental resources.
An assignment that Smith had previously requested as a reasonable accommodation given his health became vacant in May 2020, but the job was given instead to another candidate despite the department’s knowledge that Smith sought the position, the suit stated.
Smith was again denied an accommodation for his condition in June 2020, according to the suit.
Apart from a brief six-month period from January to July of 2022, when management temporarily accommodated Smith due to a doctor’s note, the department has otherwise failed to provide reasonable accommodation for Smith’s health up to the present, the suit stated.
Smith maintained he has suffered emotional distress and loss of income because he had to use leave time that he could have saved had the department accommodated him because of his health.
