Veteran Female Police Officer Files Lawsuit against LAPD for Failure to Accommodate

Posted on September 22, 2015

McNicholas & McNicholas, a Los Angeles-based plaintiff’s trial law firm, filed a lawsuit on behalf of a 20-year Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Veteran, Officer Tami Morrison, alleging discrimination, failure to accommodate, harassment and retaliation for attempting to protect and secure her rights under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Assigned to the Workers’ Compensation Fraud Unit within the Special Operations Division of the LAPD, Ms. Morrison was placed on “injured on duty” status for a neck injury in 2011 and medical maternity leave in 2013. Upon returning to work from maternity leave, she was placed on light duty restrictions due to her disabilities. Ms. Morrison completed an extension request form in order to remain in the same Unit, which was routinely granted; however, she alleged her extension was denied for having a “lot of ‘injured on duty’” time. Ms. Morrison was then forced to transfer out or face possible demotion.

As a direct result of the LAPD’s failure to accommodate Ms. Morrison’s disabilities, or otherwise engage in the interactive process, she has suffered humiliation, embarrassment and anxiety, as well as losses in earning and employment benefits.

“After being transferred, Ms. Morrison’s 20-year career and reputation plummeted,” says lead counsel Matthew McNicholas, who serves as Panel Counsel to the Los Angeles Protective League. “She is entitled to a working environment free from hostility and the department has shown no sign of compassion given her unique situation.”

Similar in nature in early 2014, Mr. McNicholas obtained a $12.3 million verdict in a jury trial which held that the LAPD did not accommodate several injured recruits in the police academy. In addition, Mr. McNicholas obtained a $1.5 million settlement earlier this year against the LAPD for failing to accommodate a 17-year veteran of the force after he injured his knee and required surgery.

Please see conformed complaint for more details.

McNicholas & McNicholas
McNicholas & McNicholas
McNicholas & McNicholas
McNicholas & McNicholas
McNicholas & McNicholas
McNicholas & McNicholas

No one has left a comment yet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *