California Highway Patrol Must Face Gay Former Officer's Discrimination Claims
The First District Court of Appeal revived Jay Brome's claims against the CHP finding that his filing of workers' compensation claims for a "work-related stress injury" stopped the clock on the one-year statute of limitations under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
January 29, 2020 at 06:36 PM
3 minute read
An appellate court has revived a discrimination lawsuit brought by a former California Highway Patrol officer who claims he faced harassment within the agency because he is gay.
Former CHP officer Jay Brome sued the agency in September 2016 under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claiming he suffered harassment and discrimination because of his sexual orientation throughout his 20-year career. Brome claimed, in part, that other officers frequently refused to provide him backup in dangerous assignments, resulting in his mental state deteriorating to the point he became suicidal and unable to work.
A trial court in Solano County had previously dismissed Brome's claims as untimely. But on Tuesday, the First District Court of Appeal revived Brome's claims finding that his earlier filing of workers' compensation claims stopped the clock on his one-year deadline to file claims under FEHA. The court also held that the CHP could potentially be held liable for acts occurring before the one-year limitations period under the so-called "continuing violation doctrine" if the actions could be sufficiently linked to unlawful conduct that occurred within the period.
"Here, a jury could reasonably conclude that Brome's workers' compensation claim put the Patrol on notice of his potential discrimination claims," wrote First District Justice Gordon Burns, noting that Brome's workers' compensation claim asserted a "work-related stress injury" during the limitations period. "The same circumstances form the basis for Brome's discrimination claims, as his stress injury was caused by the harassment and hostile work environment he alleges," wrote Burns, in an opinion joined by Justices Mark Simons and Henry Needham Jr.
Brome's lawyer, Lisa Ells of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, said in a phone interview Wednesday that the court's opinion reinforces guidance from the California Supreme Court and the state legislature urging courts to have trials on the merits in FEHA cases rather than "tossing them out on technicalities." The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) submitted an amicus brief backing Brome's bid to revive his case arguing that anti-LGBT bias in law enforcement remains a pervasive problem in California and around the country. NCLR's Asaf Orr said in a phone interview that the decision shows that "the court recognizes that it has an important role to play in addressing homophobia that still exists in law enforcement."
Brome, who worked in the CHP's San Francisco and Contra Costa offices before transferring to Solano County in 2008, claims in the lawsuit that he was subjected to derogatory, homophobic comments and singled out for pranks because he was gay. He claims that, in a break from tradition, his photograph was never displayed in the office after he won the Solano Area Officer of the Year Award in October 2013, even after he repeatedly brought the issue up with his superiors.
"If they're treating their officer like this, it raises very grave concerns about how they are treating others," Ells said.
The CHP said in a statement that it "holds its employees to high standards of conduct and strictly enforces its Equal Employment Opportunity policy designed to ensure a work environment free of discrimination and harassment." The CHP didn't respond to request for comment Wednesday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSanta Barbara Judge Accused of Moonlighting as Attorney for Secretary/Girlfriend
4 minute readInsurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250