The County and DPW opposed, asserting inter alia that Rashti’s petition was untimely. To compel the County to make her whole for all losses sustained preceding theĭetermination that she was not eligible to receive a permanent disability Then denying disability retirement on the ground that the employee is not is Prohibiting an employer from denying employment on the ground of disability and Rashti filed a Petition with the Commission seekingĬompliance with Civil Service Rule (“CSR”) 9.08 and applicable state laws Later state that the grievance process would not be completed. Personnel assured Rashti that the matter would be amicably resolved, only to Grievance and DPW agreed to combine all her previous grievances and granted herĪt the grievance hearing on July 9, 2015, DPW’s Head of Rashti’s application for permanent disability, and then DPW refused to Rashti filed grievances in 2007, 2009, andĢ010, which were placed in abeyance because Rashti was not allowed toĬounty Employees Retirement Association (“LACERA”) Retirement Board (“Board”) rejected Rashti sought legal redress but was unable to procure ordersĬompelling continuation of her long-term disability benefits. Times returned Rashti to work, only to order her off work. Section 31721(a), instead opting to cause those benefits to be stopped after In 2002, the County placed Rashti on long-term disabilityīut refused to apply for her disability retirement as required by Govt. Physical impairments, but rather aggravated them. The County and DPW treated Rashti as disabledĪnd provided various ergonomic accommodations that did not resolve Rashti’s Suffering from disabilities within the meaning of the Americans with DisabilityĪct (“ADA”) as well as the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Then on, Rashti complained of injuries to these areas and perceived herself as Meeting, Rashti suffered serious injuries when a box of books fell and struck her Relevant times has been assigned as an Architectural Assistant in DPW’s Design Rashti was first employed by the County in 1988, and at all The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows. Petitioner Rashti commenced this proceeding on April 18,Ģ017, alleging a cause of action for mandamus. Opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision.

The court has read and considered the moving papers, Her for her back pay and benefits (collectively referred to as “back Rashti alternatively seeks an order requiring the County to compensate To seek a disability retirement for her and reinstate her when her disability Of Los Angeles (“County”) and its Department of Public Works (“DPW”) violated duties Petitioner Mitra Rashti (“Rashti”) seeks a writ of mandateĬompelling Respondent Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) to set aside itsĭecision refusing to grant her a hearing on her claims that Respondent County Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate:

La county ercom commissioners