A retired fire prevention specialist has lost his legal battle against a city he claims discriminated against him due to his age and physical disability. William Hatcher filed a complaint on June 28, 2024, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One, alleging that the City of El Segundo failed to accommodate his knee disability and constructively discharged him by increasing his workload to an unmanageable level.
Hatcher's lawsuit stemmed from events dating back to December 2019 when he retired at the age of 64 after serving approximately 27 years with the El Segundo Fire Department. He claimed that following knee surgery in November 2016, he was denied light duty work and forced into early retirement due to an unreasonable increase in his workload. Hatcher alleged that upon returning to work in April 2017, he was assigned twice as many inspections as before, which he attributed to age discrimination. He also stated that his supervisors made repeated comments about his age and suggested he should retire.
Despite these allegations, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of El Segundo. The court found no evidence supporting Hatcher's claims of constructive discharge or adverse employment action. The judge ruled that Hatcher had not been required to complete the excessive number of inspections he claimed and had not faced any disciplinary actions for failing to do so. Additionally, it was determined that Hatcher's failure-to-accommodate claim was time-barred since it related to events from 2017, beyond the statute of limitations.
The City’s defense argued successfully that Hatcher had not suffered any actionable adverse employment action and that they had reasonably accommodated him post-surgery by extending his medical leave with full pay and benefits until he could return without restrictions. The court also noted that there was no evidence Hatcher requested any further accommodations after being cleared for full duty in June 2017.
Hatcher's appeal focused on asserting triable issues regarding his constructive discharge theory but failed to present sufficient evidence proving intolerable working conditions or discriminatory intent from the City. Consequently, Judge Yolanda Orozco affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Representing Hatcher were attorneys Kevin A. Lipeles, Thomas H. Schelly, and Julian Bellenghi from Lipeles Law Group. Defending the City were James E. Oldendorph and Victor D. Gonzalez from Liebert Cassidy Whitmore.