David Smith : Coroner Investigator Settles County Lawsuit

LIVERPOOL – An investigator from the coroner’s office has reached a tentative settlement in his lawsuit where he claimed that the department failed to make accommodations for his liver disease that later developed into cancer.

David Smith, the investigator, filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging that the coroner’s office failed to accommodate and engage in the interactive process regarding his health condition. On Friday, Smith’s legal team filed court documents with Judge Armen Tamzarian, informing him of a “conditional” settlement in the case, with the expectation of a dismissal request by Dec. 16. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and it is unclear whether it requires approval from the Board of Supervisors.

In March, the judge rejected a defense motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

“Even if plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of his assignment as a watch commander, a reasonable fact-finder could determine that the department should have prioritised assigning him to a vacant position in 2020,” the judge stated.

Smith, who joined the department in 1997 and held the position of a supervising coroner investigator I since 2000, was diagnosed with end-stage liver disease in May 2018. Due to his health limitations, he requested a different assignment in 2020, citing the negative impact of work-related stress on his health. The department, according to the lawsuit, failed to engage in any interactive process regarding Smith’s accommodation needs.

County attorneys argued that they had worked with Smith to identify suitable work assignments that aligned with his restrictions as soon as he raised the need for accommodation. They also mentioned granting Smith leaves of absence, a modified work schedule, and temporary assignments that allowed him to avoid certain essential job functions to accommodate his health restrictions.

However, the county lawyers claimed that Smith, on two occasions, had his doctor withdraw the restrictions that would have necessitated accepting a lower-status position with reduced pay, indicating a lack of good-faith engagement in the interactive process.

Smith’s request for an accommodation that eliminates some essential job requirements while maintaining his rank and full pay, as per the county lawyers, is not a mandatory obligation for the department to fulfil.

His lawsuit, filed in November 2022, outlined his responsibilities as including handling a high volume of calls, assigning tasks to investigators, and managing departmental resources.

Despite Smith’s request for a specific assignment in May 2020, which became vacant, it was given to another candidate instead of him, despite the department’s awareness of his interest in the position, as stated in the suit.

Smith was once again denied an accommodation for his health condition in June 2020, leading to continued challenges in finding suitable work arrangements.

Except for a brief period in 2022 when the department temporarily accommodated him based on a doctor’s note, Smith claimed that the department failed to provide reasonable accommodation for his health needs.

Due to using leave time that could have been saved if he had been accommodated, Smith alleged that he suffered emotional distress and a loss of income.

Related