|
|
Shelton v. City of Manhattan Beach9/28/2004
r daily basis in an effort to get you to take initial action by just issuing an order to `seize and desist' to Officer's Eccles and Sellan; 19 (nineteen) days after I filed the `written' complaint. I still feel that the time frame is unacceptable and I'm very concerned that it is an indication of what is yet to come. [ ] Remember Chief, the very day that the order was finally served to the Officers[,] all four of my tires were damaged . . . in an employee parking spot. Nothing was done despite my request to investigate. Nothing. The only action taken was against me in `ordering' me to cancel the DR number and crime report, then `report' the damage to my vehicle directly to you through Lieutenant Leaf, via email. . . . [ ] I'm afraid that you've become bias towards (against) me since our initial conversation after filing the written complaint when you stated `these allegations can be very devastating to your career, especially if the allegations were TRUE.' If you're angry because I refused to answer you, I'm sorry you feel that way. I refuse to confirm or deny a rumor that is based upon my personal life especially with regards to my sexuality! If my refusal to confirm or deny the validity of the rumors upon your comment upsets you, I'm sorry. The reality of whether I'm heterosexual and/or homosexual is totally irrelevant! Harassment based upon `perceived or actual' sexual orientation is what the law states. Reality has nothing to do with anything especially as to what extent of damage to me and my career might become as a result of fact or fiction! [ ] Chief, the rumors are devastating to me in either case. I don't like being put on the defensive, but as you very well know I will not stay quiet when someone is wronged. There was a time that you told me you respected me for my honesty and candor. I guess that's the case as long as it does not revolve around subject matter that you're not comfortable with. It's simply unacceptable that this department is not protecting me, no more no less."
Chief Klevesahl had promised plaintiff to speak at an October 8, 2001, union meeting. Chief Klevesahl made this promise prior to plaintiff's sexual orientation becoming known. However, Chief Klevesahl failed to appear at the October 8, 2001, union meeting. Chief Klevesahl never indicated he would not be at the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to hear Chief Klevesahl speak. At the October 8, 2001, meeting, Officer Eccles made a motion to remove plaintiff as the union president. Plaintiff described Officer Eccles's conduct as follows, "At the meeting, [Officer] Eccles made a motion to remove me as Association President `because of what he is doing to Sellan and me.'"
Two days after the union meeting, on October 10, 2001, plaintiff took a medical leave of absence. Plaintiff said he was suffering from " ncontrolled hypertension." Plaintiff delivered a medical certification to Captain Marshall. During his leave, on October 14
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
|