|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jury Confirms Discriminatory Practice By
California Community College District
Awards $299,403 to Veteran Employee
California Community College District
Awards $299,403 to Veteran Employee
On October 7, 2005, after a two-week trial, an El Cajon, CA, jury found the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District guilty of illegal discrimination against an employee with Asperger Syndrome. It awarded the veteran employee damages for lost wages, lost benefits and mental distress in the total amount of $299,403.
In 2002, the female employee plaintiff told her employer, the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District, about her medical condition, Asperger Syndrome, and requested transfer to a vacant position to accommodate her needs. The woman is a GCCCD honor graduate, campus award winner and had been showcased in District publications as a stellar student, then employee. Her first three years of employment were pure bullying. The bully supervisor, who was the campus Anti-Discrimination (ADA/Section 504) Coordinator, and her cronies kept trying to force her to resign. The legal basis for the case, however, was discrimination based on her disability.
Asperger Syndrome (AS) is a neurodevelopmental condition related to the autism spectrum. Affected individuals (usually of normal or above average intelligence, capable of intense focus, strong attention to detail, painstaking adherence to policies and procedures, unorthodox problem-solving and high productivity in the areas of their interests and aptitudes) are prone to motor coordination impairments, sensory oversensitivities, have difficulty interacting socially along "unwritten rules," reading nonverbal language or navigating workplace politics, may prefer solitary activities and are often viewed as eccentric. As a tragic result, many end up un- or underemployed and on the receiving end of prejudice, bullying, negative stereotyping, harassment and discrimination. Ý
The District ignored the plaintiff's reasonable request despite the legal obligation to act in good faith. It failed to participate in the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) interactive process even after a U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (DOE OCR) intervention and its request that the District comply with the law.GCCCD offers studies in Disability Services Management. It also claims to be an equal opportunity employer.
Instead, the employer violated its own written 30-day deadline to respond to disability accommodation requests policy. It stalled for 1.5 years! Then, the District modified the policy to eliminate the 30-day deadline to allow the District to indefinitely postpone lawful accommodation requests from anyone in the future.
The District subjected her to disparate treatment, such as the premature termination of her family's health benefits, and stripping her of employee voice and e-mail. Because of the long wait, by summer 2003, the employee had to accept demotion and 45% pay cut as the only chance work at the District with her medical condition. In October 2003, GCCCD administration unilaterally placed her on an indefinite "illness leave" despite no request for such leave from the employee, no documented medical necessity and no authorization by medical professionals. To this day, GCCCD does not allow her to return to work. The jury confirmed the discrimination against employee and awarded $299,403 for lost wages, lost benefits and mental distress.
This case appears to be the first known one in the U.S. where an employee with AS was vindicated. The AS community has a new legal precedent. Lathe Gill, the plaintiff's attorney who represents people with disabilities, said "The jury saw here a competent, dedicated individual with Asperger's Syndrome whose needs and contributions were discounted by her employer. And they held the employer responsible. People with developmental disabilities take note, there is a place for you in the workplace. Your skills and intelligence and effort can make a dramatic difference at work. Do not give up!"
After the trial, jurors chastised the GCCCD Risk Management Director and internal District Counsel for being "arrogant, brash, disturbing and incompetent."
It is not surprising that there are several current lawsuits involving that campus.
Campus administrators were obvious cowards, too. The bully who was the campus Anti-Discrimination (ADA/Section 504) Coordinator took an unexpected early retirement in the middle of the semester. The District VP of Human Resources, also announced her retirement a month after the lawsuit was filed. She dodged the obligation to give a deposition in the case.
It seems clear that if you live and work in the San Diego area, there are viable employment alternatives to the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District. Their employment practices have been exposed by this case. Seek safe employment in a healthy workplace elsewhere.
Appalled by GCCCD conduct? Contact Dr. Omero Suarez, Chancellor and let him know what you think.