PEO7 -  National Employee Leasing Network

Eliminates workers compensation liabilities and simplifies HR responsibilities.

Shelton v. City of Manhattan Beach

9/28/2004

ubmitted his August 22, 2001, internal complaint, the assignments that came directly from the chief were significantly increased. Plaintiff, "I am talking about little things that are above and beyond my regular duties, which I was maxed out at already." Captain Marshall observed, " here seemed to be a lot of increase in assignments to [plaintiff]."


On or about September 4, 2001, plaintiff met with Captain Marshall and a lieutenant. At that time, the lieutenant was plaintiff's direct supervisor. Plaintiff complained to the lieutenant that 14 days had passed with no action on the August 22, 2001, internal complaint and Officers Sellan and Eccles were continuing their campaign of verbal harassment. Captain Marshall described plaintiff during the meeting, "[Plaintiff] was very upset about what he felt was piling up of assignments by the Chief of Police and seemed very distraught, red faced, very upset." Plaintiff cried during the September 4, 2001, meeting with Captain Marshall and the lieutenant. Plaintiff said that because of the way he was being treated, he wanted to transfer to patrol. Captain Marshall and the lieutenant tried to talk plaintiff out of returning to a patrol assignment. Captain Marshall added, " e expressed a desire and intent to try to gain some control over the number and nature of assignments that he received." The lieutenant was going to take responsibility for controlling the workload. During Captain Marshall's deposition, the following developed: "Q Did [plaintiff] say words to the effect the he couldn't work with the Chief anymore because the Chief was being so hateful towards him? [ ] A Something to that effect."


Later that day, September 4, 2001, plaintiff met with Chief Klevesahl. Chief Klevesahl probed to discover whether Officers Sellan and Eccles's statements about plaintiff's sexual orientation were true. As to the questions concerning his sexual orientation, plaintiff's declaration states, "I avoided directly responding to the question."


On September 6, 2001, plaintiff submitted a written request for a transfer to patrol duties. Plaintiff knew when he requested the transfer to patrol that he would be leaving a premium pay position. Captain Marshall's initial reaction to plaintiff's transfer request was not to allow it because of a staffing shortage. But following conversations with Chief Klevesahl, the two decided collectively to allow the transfer. Chief Klevesahl subsequently granted plaintiff's transfer request.


On September 10, 2001, plaintiff returned to Chief Klevesahl's office. Plaintiff voiced his displeasure with the progress of the investigation of his August 22, 2001, internal complaint. He also threatened to complain to the media. Shortly thereafter, on or about September 11, 2001, Officers Sellan and Eccles were notified they were the subjects of an investigation as a result of plaintiff's August 22, 2001, internal complaint. Later that same da

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   


PEO7.com 23945 Calabasas Rd. Suite 106, Calabasas, CA 91302 818-222-4572 cs@peo7.com
SiteMap | Home | Exploring the Possibilities | What is Employee Leasing | Why use a Peo | Free Advice | Benefits to Employees
Responsibilities of PEO | Benefit Package | HR Management | Pre-Employment Screening | The Issue of Control
Future of PEO | Request For Proposal (RFP) Contact Us | Peo Resources | Terms of Service | FAQ