In 2013, plaintiff Timothy Green, 53, a police officer for the city of South Pasadena, was terminated from his position. Prior to his termination, Green stopped a speeding motorist in 2012, but did not give the driver a ticket. Instead, during the traffic stop, Green allegedly noticed silhouettes at the middle school across the street and left to investigate. It was later determined that the driver that Green had stopped was the driver in a hit-and-run accident. The new chief of police claimed that Green lied about the traffic stop, and terminated him in 2013. However, Green claimed that he was discriminated against due to his attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia. Green sued the city of South Pasadena, alleging claims of disability discrimination, failure to protect from discrimination, failure to accommodate disabilities, and failure to engage in the good faith interactive process under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the former chief of police, Joseph Payne, identified deficiencies in Green’s performance caused by Green’s ADHD and dyslexia and that the chief indicated that the city needed to accommodate Green’s disabilities. Payne testified that after he determined that the city was legally obligated to accommodate Green’s disabilities, he informed the new incoming police chief that Green had disabilities that were to be accommodated by the city. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that on the new chief’s first day on the job, he chose to not offer the interactive process and to not accommodate Green’s disabilities, but, instead, fired Green. Counsel argued that, the next month, the new chief alleged that Green lied about the traffic stop and that the chief gave this explanation despite there being zero evidence to support his allegations. (Payne testified to there being no evidence to support the allegations of dishonesty.) Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the new chief claimed that Green contradicted himself when he stated in the first interview that he didn’t get past the “rear quarter panel” of the driver’s car and in the second interview said he didn’t get past the “rear bumper.” However, plaintiff’s counsel argued that those sections are the same part of the car, but that despite the areas being the same, the assistant city manager repeated the allegation that Green lied in the final termination notice. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the new chief and the city were not honest when they claimed to fire Green for legitimate business reasons, as there was no evidence of dishonesty from Green, and that it was illegal to terminate Green to avoid providing accommodations. Counsel also argued that when the new chief took power, it was past the legally allowable time to terminate someone under the state statute, Public Safety Officer’s Bill of Rights Act, so the new chief and the assistant city manager terminated Green with full knowledge that they were breaking the law under POBOR and under FEHA. Defense counsel contended that when Green applied to be employed with the city as a police officer in 1995, he was asked in writing by the city whether he had any condition that needed accommodation for him to perform his job duties as a police officer, and that Green marked “No.” Counsel also contended that during the 18 years that Green was employed with the city, Green never asked for any accommodations. Counsel further contended that Green, his immediate supervisors, and the former chief of police, Payne, all testified that Green was able to perform the essential job duties of his position at an average and above average level. However, defense counsel contended that Green claimed during his lawsuit that he should have received additional accommodations, such a having a mentor and a quiet place to write police reports, so that he would be an even better police officer. Counsel further argued that during Green’s employment, Green received all of the accommodations he claimed he needed, but alleged didn’t receive, and that there was no testimony at trial that Green’s alleged habitual failure to conduct investigations was caused by his dyslexia and ADHD. Defense counsel argued that Green was dishonest in his reporting of the 2012 traffic stop incident and that the city, therefore, terminated him for legitimate business reasons. In regard to the traffic stop on Jan. 31, 2012, defense counsel contended that the city appropriately conducted an internal affairs investigation to determine whether Green neglected his duties and that it was determined that Green had lied during the investigation when he said he had not talked to the driver and had not passed the quarter panel (later changed to rear bumper) of the driver’s car. Thus, it was determined that Green’s actions constituted neglect of duty and dishonesty. Defense counsel contended that although Payne only kept the negligence of duty allegations against Green, Payne wrote that he was not convinced by Green’s story, in that Green’s explanation was “not convincing” and that the explanation that Green let a driver who was allegedly driving under the influence go in order to check out suspicious subjects at a nearby school “defies reason.” Nevertheless, Payne gave Green a six-day suspension because he was allegedly cognizant of the consequences to Green’s employment if he were to find that Green lied during the investigation. Defense counsel contended that when Payne announced his resignation on Jan. 25, 2013, he wrote a letter to materialize an “informal agreement” that he entered into with Green earlier that month. Under the alleged agreement, Payne suspended the six-day suspension based on Green acknowledging that he “battled” dyslexia and ADHD and wanted the city, through its Human Resources Department, to send Green for professional diagnosis to identify whether Green had a medical condition that limited his ability to do his job as a police officer. In his deposition, Payne testified that he felt Green refused to do complex investigations because they were too hard for him with his dyslexia and ADHD, so he told Green that he had one year to attend learning disability training and complete a performance improvement plan (PIP). In addition, the investigation file would not be closed until the city manager’s office approved it. Defense counsel contended that on Jan. 27, 2013, Green told the human resources manager that he had dyslexia and ADHD and that Payne had told him to talk to her. As a result, the human resources manager tried to get in touch with Payne, but could not connect with him to discuss Green, so she asked Green for a doctor’s note to determine whether he could perform the essential functions of his job, given the information from Green and the Jan. 25, 2013 letter from Payne. In addition, before the new chief of police started, Payne allegedly talked to him about Green’s learning disability training and PIP. On Feb. 27, 2013, Green presented a letter from a psychiatrist and a neurologist that said he could do his job as a police officer, with his disability, without any restrictions. However, the next day, the human resources manages and the new police chief discussed the doctor’s letter and about how it allegedly did not answer a lot of questions, such as whether or not the doctor had a description of Green’s job duties. Defense counsel contended that as a result, both the human resources manages and the new police chief had safety concerns about Green continuing to work, so they both agreed to send Green to the city’s occupational healthy therapist to see if Green could safely perform the essential functions of his job and determined whether Green needed any accommodations to do his job. Counsel contended that although the city had the right to send Green to its own doctor, per the personnel rules, Green refused to attend the appointment, so the city cancelled it. Defense counsel argued that after becoming chief, the new chief of police reviewed the investigative file on Green, including Payne’s letter, and determined that Green had not been honest during the investigation. Counsel contended that as a result, the new police chief put Green on paid administrative leave on March 13, 2013 and sent Green a Notice of Intent to Terminate based on dishonesty on March 28, 2013. Defense counsel noted that in April 2013 and June 2013, the city and its attorney and Green and his attorneys met to discuss the notice of termination and to see if Green would be eligible for Industrial Disability Retirement. Counsel further noted that the human resources managers sent Green a letter, inviting Green to attend an interactive meeting, on July 9, 2013, but that plaintiff’s counsel responded to the letter twice to say that Green did not have a disability that needed to be accommodated, that Green could do his job without any restrictions per his doctor’s note, that Payne did not make a professional opinion about Green’s disability, and that Green would not attend the interactive meeting., Green was a police officer for the city for 18 years before being terminated in 2013. He was also a reserve officer for the city for eight years prior to his 18-year tenure as a full-time officer. Green claimed that the city was aware of his ADHD and dyslexia for 18 years and that he always received good job evaluations. Thus, he claimed that his career was permanently ended and that the city knew that a termination for dishonesty is considered the “death penalty” in law enforcement circles. Accordingly, Green claimed that his career was permanently ended when the city fired him with such a charge, causing him to he feel like he was “kicked in the nuts” and suffer from emotional distress. (The plaintiff’s medical expert, who saw Green once in 2017, repeated that Green told him that he felt like he had been “kicked in the nuts.”) The plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist testified about Green’s emotional distress, the past distress suffered by Green, and the future expectations of distress. The expert also opined that Green suffered from depression and anxiety as a result of the alleged wrongful treatment and wrongful discrimination. In addition, the expert opined that Green’s emotional damages will be life-long, as the city’s actions rendered Green’s unemployability as an officer to be permanent. The plaintiff’s police practices and procedures expert testified about how a termination for dishonesty is known as the “death penalty” in law enforcement circles. Green claimed that due to the city’s actions, he has been out of the workforce as an officer for four years and that given that he is an older veteran, at 57 years old, even if the city were to exonerate him and acknowledge there was no dishonesty, he would not be able to get hired as an officer at this point. Thus, Green sought recovery for his past and future loss of wages and for his past and future emotional damages.