Brown v. City of Los Angeles
Filed April 10, 2008
Cite as 06-55699

Judgment on Validity of Offset Provision Affirmed

Plaintiffs Darryl Brown and Martin Whitfield sustained injuries in the line of duty as officers of the City of Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). They both applied for benefits under LAPD’s disability retirement pension.

The retirement pension contained an offset provision whereby payments are reduced by amount of any worker’s compensation award that the officer receives for disabling injury.

Plaintiffs claimed that the offset amounted to disability discrimination. They sued the City in state court, alleging violations of the following:

1. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”),


2. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and


3. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The City adopted this offset to prevent “double payment” for a disabling work-related injury. The City also believed that the offset was needed to preserve the tax-exempt status of the pension payments.

After the City removed the case to federal court, the district court granted its motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiffs’ cross-motion.

Plaintiffs timely appealed.

On appeal, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court. It held that Offset provision of disability retirement program does not violate disability discrimination provisions of Title II of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or of California Fair Employment and Housing Act. In holding so, the appeal court made the following justifications:

• Plaintiffs failed to show that the City’s offset policy discriminates “by reason of” their disabilities. The limitation on the disability pensions - the offset for worker’s compensation payments — does not discriminate “by reason of” disability.


• The offset does not regard disabled officers differently or make disproportionate burden because of the nature of their limitations or even their status as individuals with disabilities. It simply limits a type of compensation for work-related injuries that are available only to individuals who are disabled.


• Most importantly, the limitation merely deals with the cause of the injury. It only pertains to whether it was sufficiently work-related that the officer receives worker’s compensation. This is not discrimination “by reason of disability”.

Hence, the decision of the district court was affirmed.