Shannon v. City of Los Angeles


Filed 6/13/11 Shannon v. City of Los Angeles CA2/4



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS


California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.





IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

CARMEN SHANNON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent.

B224353 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC400247)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Amy D. Hogue, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Portner Law Offices and Michael G. Portner, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Claudia McGee Henry, Assistant City Attorney, and Brian I. Cheng, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent.
_____________________________________

Appellant Carmen Shannon, a 27-year employee of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), brought suit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Govt. Code, § 12900, et seq.) against her former employer based on her 2008 termination.[1] Appellant contended that in 2005, she sought accommodation for a disability -- sarcoidosis -- that required her to stay home one to three days per month, but that when she took the approved leave, her supervisors criticized her, accused her of abusing her leave time and called her at home demanding she come in to work. In 2005 and 2006, she complained, in writing and orally, about her supervisors' actions. After she complained, a number of punitive actions were allegedly taken, including a transfer from downtown to the Valley, which lengthened her commute and exacerbated a preexisting back condition. In addition, between 2005 and 2007, she was written up for various alleged violations of policies and procedures, given negative performance evaluations, and threatened with termination.
Respondent City of Los Angeles moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication of appellant's claims for disability discrimination and retaliation, primarily contending it had a legitimate, job-related reason for discharging appellant. Respondent supported its motion with documents purportedly from appellant's internal affairs file. Appellant objected to the documentary evidence submitted by respondent, but the trial court overruled or disregarded the objections and granted summary adjudication on these claims.
We conclude that respondent failed to comply with basic rules of evidence requiring the proponent of documentary evidence to lay a proper foundation to support its admissibility. Absent the inadmissible evidence, respondent's motion was fatally deficient. We, therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Complaint
Appellant was employed by the LAPD from 1981 until her termination on July 28, 2008.[2] For the majority of that period, her position was that of a â€