Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michael Sargent worked as a Gardena police officer for about 20 years until retiring in 2022 on an industrial disability. He sued the City and city manager Clint Osorio under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), alleging age and disability discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination. His third amended complaint alleged the City wrongfully denied him Tier 1 paid retirement health benefits under City Resolution No. 6475, which requires a retiring employee to be at least 50, and that Osorio requested personal favors—running VIN numbers and streamlining a concealed carry weapons license—in exchange for amending the Resolution or exempting Sargent from its age requirement.
After Sargent's March 2021 promotion to lieutenant, Osorio began requesting the favors. In November 2021 Sargent filed a stress-related workers' compensation claim and was placed off work; while on leave he disclosed his Parkinson's disease and permanent restrictions. Sargent and Osorio discussed amending the Resolution and allegedly reached a verbal agreement in early 2022, but after Sargent reported Osorio's concealed-carry inquiry to the police chief in July 2022, Osorio cut off contact. Sargent retired in October 2022 under age 50 and received no Tier 1 benefits because he retired under 50 and due to disability.
The trial court sustained Defendants' demurrer without leave to amend in March 2025, finding the Resolution favors older workers, does not exclude disabled employees from Tier 1 benefits, and that Sargent failed to allege Osorio's conduct was based on age or disability, protected activity, or a causal link to an adverse action. Sargent appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. On age discrimination, the court followed General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline, which rejected an ADEA claim by workers aged 40-49 challenging benefits for workers 50 and over, and held FEHA likewise prohibits only discrimination preferring the young over the old, not policies favoring older workers. The same reasoning defeated Sargent's disparate impact age claim.
On disability discrimination based on the Resolution, the court held Sargent stated no disparate treatment claim: Tier 1 eligibility turns on age and years of service, not disability, and Sargent was ineligible because he was under 50, not because he retired due to disability. The Resolution gives disabled retirees short of service-retirement criteria a benefit unavailable to others—continued health coverage at their own cost—so disabled and non-disabled employees have the same opportunity for paid benefits, and disabled employees greater opportunity. The failure-to-prevent claim failed because no actionable discrimination or harassment was pleaded.
As to Osorio's conduct, even assuming Sargent pleaded a disability and an adverse action, he alleged no facts from which discriminatory motive could be inferred: Osorio allegedly reneged on helping Sargent obtain benefits not because of Sargent's disability but because Sargent refused personal favors. The harassment claim failed for lack of any allegation of slurs, demeaning language, or physical or visual harassment because of disability; the quid-pro-quo theory was unsupported and forfeited. The retaliation claim failed for lack of any pleaded causal link: Osorio stopped discussions after Sargent reported the concealed-carry inquiry to the police chief, not because of Sargent's complaints about the Resolution.
Key Takeaways
- FEHA's age protections, like the ADEA's, bar only favoritism toward younger workers; minimum-age retirement benefit schemes favoring older workers do not violate FEHA.
- A retirement plan conditioning paid benefits on age and service does not discriminate based on disability where disabled retirees have the same opportunity to qualify for service retirement plus an alternative benefit.
- Knowledge of an employee's disability, even with exploitation of that vulnerability, does not support an inference of discriminatory animus absent allegations the adverse action was motivated by bias against the disability itself.
- A FEHA retaliation claim requires a pleaded causal link between protected activity and adverse action; an intervening event defeats the claim.
- Arguments not raised in opposition to a demurrer or in appellate briefing are forfeited.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms FEHA's age protections are asymmetric like the ADEA's and that traditional minimum-age retirement schemes do not violate FEHA, guiding employers structuring retirement benefits.
It also clarifies that knowledge of a disability and even extortionate conduct leveraging it cannot plead FEHA discrimination or retaliation absent allegations the adverse action was motivated by bias against the disability itself.