In November 2009, several Los Angeles Police Department recruits — including plaintiffs Ryan Atkins, Douglas Boss, Justin Desmond, Anthony Lee, Eriberto Orea, Andrea Standifer and Ellena Swatek — were told that they needed to return to the police academy “today.” Atkins, Lee and Orea were previously injured during police academy training in 2008; Boss and Desmond were previously injured during police academy training in 2009; and Standifer and Swatek were also previously injured during police academy training around this time. They were later called in by their lieutenant in November 2009 and told, “Start today, or you have to quit or be fired.” However, since none of the recruits were medically cleared, they could not start. As a result, their only options were to quit or be fired. Having done nothing wrong and needing the unemployment benefits, which are not available if they quit, four of the recruits were fired. Boss opted to resign so that he would not be terminated. Atkins, Boss, Desmond, Lee, Orea, Standifer and Swatek sued the city of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck.The seven police recruits alleged that the defendants’ actions were in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and constituted disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process. They also alleged that the city’s actions constituted a breach of contract for failing to abide by a one-page agreement the Los Angeles Police Department reached with the officers’ union, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, in 2008. According to the terms of the agreement, the LAPD would assist injured recruits, who were unable to perform their essential duty functions, with obtaining suitable employment elsewhere in the city. Plaintiffs Standifer and Swatek were ultimately dismissed from the case, and defendant Beck was also later dismissed from the suit. In addition, the five remaining plaintiffs ultimately agreed not to pursue the breach of contract claim at trial. Atkins, Boss, Desmond, Lee and Orea claimed they were wrongfully denied temporary city jobs while they were recovering from police academy training in and around 2009. Instead, they claimed that the city should have accommodated them with other jobs until they recovered. They contended that though the city put them in the “recycle” program, in which injured recruit officers were temporarily assigned to light duty work, the program was abruptly stopped because the city did not want to pay for injured recruits anymore despite the program having existed for over a decade. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the city’s stated reason as to why the plaintiffs could not stay in the recycle program any longer, and had to resign or be terminated, was that the plaintiffs were allegedly in violation of the two-year rule — in California, peace officers have two years to complete their training and probation. However, plaintiffs’ counsel presented evidence that the two-year rule did not apply to Atkins, Boss, Desmond, Lee and Orea because the two-year rule begins to “tick” when an officer is sworn and the injured recruits had not yet been sworn in because recruits are not sworn until the end of the academy. Counsel contended that the LAPD knew the two-year rule did not apply at the time the city forced the plaintiffs to resign or be terminated because recruits used to be sworn in on the first day, but that was specifically changed by the LAPD to avoid compliance issues with the two-year rule. Counsel further contended that, in fact, changing the swear-in date from the beginning of the academy to the end of the academy was the subject of a four-year meet-and-confer between the union and the LAPD, which resulted in the agreement whereby the LAPD would swear-in recruits at the end of the academy and, in exchange, if recruits were injured, the LAPD would find them jobs elsewhere in the city. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the LAPD changed the swear-in date to avoid the very reason it cited for releasing the plaintiffs. Counsel additionally contended that the city never offered to, nor made the plaintiffs aware of, any available positions at any time prior to forcing them to resign or be terminated. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel presented evidence that the city had hundreds of available and funded positions in which the plaintiffs could have been accommodated and which the city wanted filled. Defense counsel contended the plaintiffs were recruits and, as such, were “conditional employees” who would not and could not perform the essential functions of their job, so there was no obligation to place them elsewhere. Counsel also argued that because the were not permanent and stationary, there was no duty to accommodate them. In response, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that no such “permanent-and-stationary” injury requirement exists under FEHA, City Charter § 1014 (which allows for transfers to civilian positions within the city), or the agreement entered into between the LAPD and the League., Atkins, Boss, Desmond, Lee and Orea claimed they suffered significant humiliation as a result of their treatment. Thus, they sought recovery of past and future lost earnings as a result of being fired or having to resign, as well as sought recovery of past and future non-economic damages, which included their mental suffering.