The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Grants Summary Judgment in an Employment Dispute.

January 24, 2014

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, granted summary judgment in an employment dispute argued by Ellen M. Tipping and Katelyn M. Knight.

In 2002, Plaintiff was employed by the Children Learning Centers, which operates group homes for troubled youths. Plaintiff worked the overnight shift, which is an "awake" position, meaning that employees must be awake and alert at all times. Overnight shift employees were required to perform bed checks at 15 minute intervals. In February 2011, plaintiff suffered a heart attack and took a week off work. When he returned, he told his manager he could not lift heavy objects. At the beginning of August 2011, plaintiff had surgery to implant a defibrillator. He did not take any time off, but he informed his supervisor that his arm would be in a sling and he would be unable to lift anything heavy for a month after the surgery. On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff's supervisor made a visit to the house where he worked, and from outside the house he observed Plaintiff lying down in the darkened living room. Plaintiff denied he was sleeping and claimed he was meditating, but Plaintiff's supervisor did not find his explanation credible and Plaintiff was terminated for sleeping on the job.

Plaintiff claimed that Defendant's stated reason for termination was his race, age, disability and claimed that it was in retaliation for making a worker's compensation claim. Plaintiff contended he was disabled after he suffered his heart attack, and was knowingly assigned additional duties because he was disabled. He claimed that he and other older employees were terminated and replaced with younger persons and contended that the Defendant's owner expressed a preference for African American employees.

The Murchison attorneys filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Plaintiff did not have a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that Plaintiff did not state a prima facie case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), because his replacement was not substantially younger, that he did not prove that Defendant's non-discriminatory reason for the termination was pretextual, and that he did not state a claim for retaliation because the workers' compensation claim was filed after the termination and the exclusive remedy was under Labor Code sec. 123a.