Top State Court Rules Disabled Woman Fired by City Can Sue

Attorneys representing Moorpark downplayed the significance of a ruling handed down Monday by the state’s highest court that allows a former city secretary to sue for disability discrimination.

The California Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-2 decision that employees who are disabled while on the job and then fired can establish a claim for discrimination.

But Harold A. Bridges, a Camarillo lawyer who represents the city of Moorpark, said he believes it is unlikely the dismissed worker will be able to prove that she is entitled to damages once the case comes to trial.

“We dispute the fact that she is entitled to any recovery whatsoever and that is still to be determined,” Bridges said. “All this case was to determine is to see if she can establish a claim.”

City administrators on Monday said they could not comment on the ruling until the City Council gets a chance to review the decision.

The Supreme Court ruling was in favor of Theresa Dillon, a 40-year-old Simi Valley resident who worked as an administrative secretary for Moorpark from 1990 to 1994. Dillon said in her lawsuit that she was fired after she injured her knee while at work.

Dillon’s court victory could pave the way for thousands of employees disabled while on the job to collect for damages, said Dillon’s Ventura-based attorney, Maury Mills Jr.

“What it means,” Mills said, “is that people that were injured on the job and were subsequently let go, rather than just file a workers’ comp claim, can now sue their employers for being discriminated [against] for the injury they suffered on the job.”

Before the Dillon ruling, workers who were fired after being injured at work could obtain a maximum of $10,000 in damages, plus their lost earnings and $250 for legal costs and expenses under state workers’ compensation law.

After Dillon’s injury, her doctor told her that in order to return to work she would have to refrain from kneeling, squatting or excessive stair-climbing, according to court documents. When she tried to come back to work, the city fired her in February 1994.

She later filed a workers’ compensation claim. In January 1995, Dillon also filed a discrimination complaint.

In the complaint Dillon filed with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, she wrote that Moorpark City Manager Steve Kueny told her she could not perform her secretarial duties because of the doctor’s restrictions.

“He stated that these were ‘essential’ in my job,” Dillon wrote in the discrimination complaint. “They are not . . . Most of my job was research and typing.”

She maintained that she could do her job by using the wheelchair ramp instead of the stairs to get around City Hall.

The state agency said it declined to pursue the case, telling Dillon she could exercise her right to file a private lawsuit against Moorpark.

According to the Superior Court suit filed in February 1995, Moorpark discriminated against Dillon “by engaging in a course of conduct which included not making reasonable accommodations for plaintiff’s physical disability and then terminating plaintiff at least in part because of her physical disability.”

The Supreme Court agreed to take a look at the case after Dillon won both at the trial and again in a Court of Appeals ruling because of conflicting rulings in such worker disputes.

Bridges said the high court’s ruling “will create challenges for employers because they will be subject to additional claims for employees if they believe they’ve been injured.”

Times staff writer Tracy Wilson contributed to this story. Hong is a staff writer for Times Community News.