|
|
Shelton v. City of Manhattan Beach9/28/2004
rheard people comment that [plaintiff] is gay. [An officer] stated that he has overheard people insinuate that [plaintiff] and either [a recruit or the recruit's] brother is gay. [The officer] stated that there are some people that believed there is a nexus between one or all of these people being gay and [a certain individual] being hired as a police officer. [An officer] stated during his interview that he has heard Officer Sellan call [plaintiff] gay on one or two occasions. [An officer] stated during his interview that he has heard Officer Sellan call [plaintiff] gay on eight or ten occasions. Additionally, [the officer] stated that he heard Officer Sellan comment that [a certain recruit] was hired because his . . . brother is [plaintiff's] boyfriend. Officer Eccles denied calling [plaintiff] gay, a fag or a faggot. Officer Sellan denied calling [plaintiff] gay, even after he was confronted with evidence that indicated that he may have done so."
Defendants presented evidence the investigation was quicker than average for a complex internal affairs investigation; there had been other city internal affairs investigations that had taken more than a year to complete. Plaintiff presented evidence that at the time of Captain Marshall's deposition, on February 20, 2003, plaintiff's August 22, 2001, internal complaint had been under investigation for a year and a half without resolution. Captain Marshall did not recall other investigations having taken that long. One other investigation had taken more than a year because many witnesses had to be interviewed; further, according to Captain Marshall, "The workload of the assigned lieutenant was extensive." Captain Marshall had been told the investigation of plaintiff's internal complaint was taking a long time because, "[Plaintiff's] medical condition prevented him from participating in interviews." In addition, Captain Marshall was told that as of December 2001, Officer Eccles was not available for an interview. Captain Marshall noted, however, that between August 22, 2001, and December 2001, Officer Eccles was working at the department.
Plaintiff remained on unpaid leave for the purpose of continuing health and other benefits. On March 26, 2003, however, the city ordered plaintiff to return to light duty. The light duty restrictions applied only to plaintiff's carpel tunnel syndrome. After plaintiff officially retired from the department, he returned to the police station to turn in his badge, pick up his belongings, and receive his retirement identification with a concealed weapon endorsement. A lieutenant refused to provide plaintiff with retirement identification with a concealed weapon endorsement. The lieutenant grabbed plaintiff from behind.
C. The Internal Affairs Investigations of Plaintiff
In the months following plaintiff's August 22, 2001, written complaint, two internal affairs investigations of him were commenced. While the inte
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|