Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY–E.D. Pa.: Demoted police officer obtains equitable and other relief for ADA violations, (Jun 2, 2025)

By Nadine E. Roddy, J.D.

The officer was demoted while on medical leave following a disabling brain injury.

A police officer who was demoted while on medical leave was entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs, nominal damages, back pay, and reinstatement on his successful ADA claims of discrimination and retaliation, a federal district court in Pennsylvania has ruled. However, compensatory damages were precluded by the police defendants’ establishment of the “same-decision” defense (Labrice v. City of Philadelphia, No. 2:19-cv-04377-AB (E.D. Pa. May 27, 2025)).

Demotion while on medical leave. A city police officer (employee) who was demoted while on medical leave brought suit under the ADA and the FMLA against the City of Philadelphia, its Police Department Chief Inspector, and its former Police Commissioner. After several years of employment, he had been promoted from lieutenant to captain. City regulations required him to serve six months in a probationary status before becoming a permanent captain. During his probationary period, he suffered a traumatic brain injury that disabled him and necessitated medical leave.

Although the probationary period was “frozen” while the employee was on leave, the city nevertheless demoted him to lieutenant during his leave time. He was not informed of this demotion, however, until he had returned from leave and worked for an additional month as a probationary captain. Once informed of the demotion, he filed suit while continuing to work as a lieutenant.

The employee alleged that his demotion was motivated by animus towards his disability and/or his use of medical leave in violation of the ADA, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and the FMLA. The claims submitted to the jury after a six-day trial were (1) disability discrimination, (2) retaliation for taking medical leave under the ADA, (3) interference with FMLA rights, and (4) retaliation for exercising FMLA rights. The jury found that the employee prevailed on his disability discrimination claim, but that the city had established that it would have made the same decision even if the employee’s disability had played no role in the employment decision (the “same-decision” defense). The jury also found that the employee prevailed on his ADA claim of retaliation for taking medical leave. On the FMLA claims, the jury found in favor of the city.

At issue were the appropriate remedies to be awarded for the ADA violations.

Disability discrimination claim. The court noted that the remedies available to the employee for his successful disability discrimination claim were restricted by the city’s establishment of the same-decision defense. For ADA mixed-motive discrimination claims, such as the one in this case, the defense limits remedies rather than providing a defense to liability. Attorney fees and costs are available to the plaintiff, but compensatory damages, reinstatement, and back pay are not. Thus, the employee in this case was entitled to recover only attorney fees and costs plus the $1.00 in nominal damages awarded by the jury.

ADA retaliation claim. A plaintiff who prevails on an ADA retaliation claim is not entitled to legal damages, but the court has discretion to order equitable remedies, including back pay and reinstatement. The city objected to an award of any such remedies on several grounds, the first being the court’s use of mixed-motive jury instructions. The court explained that, just as a Title VII plaintiff, an ADA plaintiff may make a claim for discrimination under either the pretext theory of McDonnell Douglas or the mixed-motive theory of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. In this case, the court decided that the employee could proceed under the mixed-motive framework because he produced direct evidence of discrimination. The city had issued him a rejection form explicitly stating, “‘The reasons for your rejection from the above positions are as follows:.... You were in [injured on duty] status from 8/7/18-4/14/19.’” Thus, the court’s use of mixed-motive instructions was appropriate based on the evidence presented at trial.

The city’s remaining objections were also without merit.

The equitable award. The court then exercised its discretion to award the employee back pay in the amount of $129,935.84, and to order reinstatement to the status of probationary captain. The back-pay award covered the six-year period from his unlawful demotion to the entry of the jury’s verdict. Reinstatement was feasible, given that the employee had continued to work for the city during the multi-year course of the litigation. Restarting the six-month probationary period would provide the city adequate time to evaluate the employee’s performance fairly and without prejudice.

For these reasons, the court awarded the employee attorney fees and costs, $1.00 in nominal damages, $129,935.84 in back pay, and reinstatement to the probationary position of captain so that the employee could start a new six-month probationary period.

The case is No. 2:19-cv-04377-AB.

Judge: Brody, A.

Attorneys: Allison Aileen Barker (Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti) for Michael Labrice. Frank E. Wehr, City of Philadelphia Law Department, for City of Philadelphia.

Companies: City of Philadelphia

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination PublicEmployees EmployeeLeave RemediesDamages AttorneysFees PennsylvaniaNews