Harbor Patrol Officer John Lowry was injured while on duty for the Port San Luis Harbor District. Lowry’s doctor said he was not fit to return to work and should be medically retired. Lowry stopped working when he received a letter from the District’s workers’ compensation insurer that said Lowry’s industrial injury had resulted in permanent disability and the District was unable to offer him work within his permanent limitations/restrictions.
Lowry applied for a CalPERS disability retirement. The District decided it lacked sufficient information to make a determination of disability. CalPERS notified Lowry that his application for disability retirement was denied.
The District eventually terminated Lowry on the basis that he “voluntarily resigned” by accepting other employment. The District later admitted that Lowry did not voluntarily resign.
Lowry sued the District, and ultimately dropped all but one cause of action for disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Lowry claimed the District discriminated by denying him a disability retirement, which he alleged was a term, condition, or privilege of employment.
The District moved for summary judgment. There was no dispute that Lowry could not perform his essential job duties with or without accommodation. Thus, the District contended that Lowry was not a qualified individual with a disability, and not entitled to any FEHA remedy. The superior court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment, reasoning in part that: 1) disability retirement is not a term, condition, or privilege of employment under FEHA; and 2) Lowry could not pursue a disability retirement through FEHA.
Lowry appealed to the California Court of Appeal. During oral argument, Lowry conceded there was no evidence in the record that he could return to work at the District.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court. First, the Court found that the denial of disability retirement payments was not an adverse employment action under FEHA. A disability retirement is a post-employment benefit; it therefore cannot adversely and materially affect an employee’s job performance or opportunity for advancement. The Court concluded that the failure to provide Lowry disability retirement benefits was not an adverse employment action under FEHA.
Second, the Court found that FEHA disability discrimination protections are limited to “qualified individuals”—meaning those who can perform their essential job duties with or without reasonable accommodation. Since Lowry conceded he could not do so, he could not defeat the District’s motion for summary judgement.
Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor District, 2025 Cal.App.LEXIS 102, 2/26/25.