Following a six-day trial, a jury awarded the settlement to Sharon Leuzinger, 56, a former correctional officer who had worked at Lake County's Juvenile Hall for 16 years, as Lake County News has reported.
Susan Sher, who was Leuzinger's sole counsel until last summer, was delighted by the ruling. “The jury clearly made a very strong statement.”
“From the beginning we've felt we acted in good faith,” said the county's attorney in the suit, Mark A. Jones of the Sacramento law firm Jones and Dyer.
Leuzinger's wrist was injured in 1998 during a softball game with juvenile inmates. In 2004, while she was on medical leave for breast cancer treatment, the county notified her that she would not be allowed to return to her job but would be allowed to apply for another position within the county. Later that year she retired on medical disability.
Last November Jones filed a motion for a new trial, and also asked the court to set aside the September verdict, claiming there was no evidentiary basis for the ruling, as Lake County News reported. Jones' filings represented the county's belief that Leuzinger had failed to prove that the county had not accommodated her disability.
However, US District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong – who presided at the September trial – denied the county's motions for a new trial or setting aside the verdict.
In a 17-page decision, written Feb. 1, Armstrong denied the motions without a hearing – which had been set for Tuesday.
Armstrong upheld the jury's finding that the county had “discriminated against Leuzinger by taking an adverse employment action against her on the basis of her physical disability.” That finding, she wrote, included the jury's conclusion that Leuzinger had been able to to perform essential job duties – including restraining juveniles – even without reasonable accommodation.
The jury also had found that the county “failed to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process” with Leuzinger in accommodating her disability, and that they also failed to provide accommodation, Armstrong wrote.
Armstrong's ruling noted that the county had stated Leuzinger had been unable to properly restrain juveniles on at least two occasions in January 2004 due to her wrist condition, yet those situations were not noted in following job evaluations.
Leuzinger's supervisor, Chief Probation Office Steve Buchholz, also refused to meet with Leuzinger to discuss her employment, telling the court that he did not believe it was appropriate for him to do so. Armstrong's decision cited Buchholz's refusal to meet with Leuzinger as a failure to engage in the interactive process.
Another piece of “sufficient” evidence that Armstrong said led to the jury's decision was Leuzinger's testimony that she had written to the Board of Supervisors “complaining of discrimination on the basis of physical disability, but received no response, nor did the County conduct an investigation.”
Failing to make reasonable accommodation – unless it would cause an employer undue hardship – is actionable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Armstrong wrote.
Armstrong also was not persuaded that the county properly applied doctor-imposed restrictions on Leuzinger. She wrote that the county, acting through Buchholz, “misinterpreted the letters from the doctors as imposing mandatory restrictions that were simply suggestions. Both doctors testified that this was the case, and the defendant made no effort to clarify their recommendations.”
Armstrong added, “The jury could properly find that Leuzinger was able to perform the essential duties of a Senior Juvenile Correctional Officer.”
Sher said this is the largest jury verdict that she's ever won. “These kinds of verdicts don't happen very often.”
Jones said the next step is for the county to file a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which must happen soon.
After that is filed, Jones said the county must decide how to proceed. Although no “clear decisions” have been made, Jones said continuing with the appeal is one option, which could take a few more years.
“The other option would be to resolve the suit in some fashion,” he said.
Jones added, “I think there's a lot of things that are troubling about the ruling,” but that it doesn't behoove the county to go into those now.
“Those issues would be addressed on appeal,” he said.
Meanwhile, Sher and her legal team have more papers of their own to file.
Sher and the three other attorneys who have joined her on the case, which was filed in January of 2006, are seeking about $900,000 in attorneys' fees, which would be in addition to the nearly $1.7 million verdict.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
{mos_sb_discuss:2}
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
