Firefighter claims racial discrimination. Defense verdict.
Plaintiff claimed that he experienced a racially hostile work environment and was retaliated against by defendants after filing a race discrimination complaint with the City.
- Case Name: Ronald El-Malik Curtis v. City of Oakland, Jennifer Ray, Joseph Torres, John Farrell and Gerald A. Simon
- Court and Case Number: United States District Court, N.D. California / C 10-00358 SI
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Tuesday, December 08, 2015
- Type of Action: Discrimination, Racial, Employment
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Susan Illston
- Plaintiffs: Ronald El-Malik Curtis, firefighter
- Defendants: City of OaklandJennifer RayJoseph TorresJohn FarrellGerald A. Simon
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
- Gross Verdict or Award: Defense Verdict.
- Trial or Arbitration Time: 5 weeks.
- Jury Polls: 8-0
- Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Price And Associates by Pamela Yvette Price, Oakland.
Law Offices of Mister Phillips by Mister Phillips, Pinole.
- Attorney for the Defendant:
Foster Employment Law by Madelyn G. Jordan-Davis and C. Christine Maloney, Oakland. (For all defendants.)
Facts and Background
- Facts and Background:
Plaintiff is a firefighter in the City of Oakland’s Fire Department. Plaintiff claimed he was subjected to a hostile work environment because of his race and retaliated against for complaining of alleged harassment. Defendants City of Oakland, Jennifer Ray, Joseph Torres, John Farrell and Gerald A. Simon denied each of these allegations and denied liability for any damages to plaintiff.
- Plaintiff's Contentions:
Plaintiff contended that he was subjected to a hostile work environment because of his race and retaliated against for reporting the alleged harassment to the City. (Title VII, FEHA, 42 U.S.C. 1981, 42 U.S.C. 1983)
- Defendant's Contentions:
Defendants claimed that the City promptly conducted investigations into each of plaintiff’s claims of alleged hostile work environment. The investigations did not uncover evidence to support plaintiff’s allegations. Defendants further claimed that plaintiff received corrective discipline to address plaintiff’s behavior, namely, insubordination toward multiple officers and hostile interactions with co-workers.