Principles for Public Safety Employment

the jury concluded that the requirement of color vision was a bona fide occupational qualification for patrol duties, it found for the plaintiff on the grounds the county improperly “regarded” the plaintiff as disabled. Fortunately, the California Court of Appeal overturned the jury’s decision and found for the department. Quinn v. City of Los Angeles 79 A police applicant listed that he was hearing impaired on his written test. At his physical examination he failed the sound localization test, which determines an individual's ability to determine the direction from which a sound is coming. Based on the applicant’s inability to hear in his right ear, the physician failed the applicant. The city clerk inadvertently entered that the applicant passed the exam and he completed police academy. The applicant passed all physical and psychological tests, cleared background checks, and became a probationary police officer. The officer’s hearing impairment began manifesting itself in his poor work performance (i.e. an inability to hear the police radio.) The officer was eventually terminated and brought suit alleging wrongful discharge and disability discrimination. The California Court of Appeal reversed and directed the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the city. The plaintiff failed to prove that he was qualified to be hired as a police officer. The evidence established that the plaintiff failed the sound localization test as part of his initial application. That failure justified denying his application. He was incorrectly hired and after the error was discovered, he was discharged. Thus, the discharge was not based on a disability. Instead, it was based on the finding that the police department had initially mistakenly hired him. It was within the discretion of the police department to set physical criteria for the hiring process. Bentivegna v. U.S. Dept. of Labor 80 Bentivegna was hired by the City of Los Angeles as a “building repairer.” On his application he indicated he had diabetes mellitus. Applicants were required to pass a physical examination as a condition of employment. Applicants with diabetes were required to demonstrate “control,” meaning blood sugar test results consistently below a certain level. At Bentivegna's physical examination, one test yielded a urine glucose reading of “4 +,” which the city's physicians believed demonstrated, or at least raised a significant possibility of, lack of control. Consequently, the city terminated Bentivegna’s employment. Bentivegna exhausted all administrative remedies before filing a complaint with the Department of Labor. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the city wrongfully terminated the employee on the basis of his diabetes. The city was unable to provide any evidence supporting its allegations that the diabetes created an increased risk of injury or long-term health problems. The termination because of diabetes was found not to be a business necessity for the safe performance of the job and was

Principles for Public Safety Employment ©2022 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 23