A California appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of a former Gardena police lieutenant’s disability and age discrimination lawsuit.

The city’s retiree health insurance eligibility requirements did not establish unlawful discrimination, and the officer failed to plead facts showing discriminatory or retaliatory intent by the city manager involving a workers' compensation stress claim, the 2nd District Court of Appeal said in Sargent v. City of Gardena, an unpublished decision handed down Monday.

Michael Sargent worked for the city as a police officer from 2002 through October 2022 when he took an industrial disability retirement, alleging that a stress-related injury combined with his Parkinson's disease left him unable to return to work.

Sargent alleged that after he was promoted to lieutenant in March 2021, Gardena City Manager Clint Osorio started asking for a series of what Sargent described as inappropriate favors. For example, he claimed that Osorio asked him to misuse his police authority to run vehicle identification numbers and to streamline the process of procuring a permit for Osorio to carry a concealed weapon.

Sargent filed a workers' compensation claim for stress and was placed off work. 

While on workers’ compensation leave, Sargent learned that he would have permanent work restrictions and likely would not be able to return to his job. He also disclosed to Osorio that he had Parkinson’s disease and would need lifelong medication.

Sargent believed the city’s retirement health insurance policy would leave him without paid medical benefits if he retired because of his disability before turning 50.

City Resolution No. 6475 provided paid post-retirement health insurance for qualifying employees who met minimum age and service requirements. Generally, Tier 1 eligibility required an employee to be at least 50 years old and to have 15 years of service and continuous enrollment in a city health insurance plan.

Employees retiring because of an industrial disability who did not satisfy the service retirement requirements could continue participating in the city’s group health insurance plan at their own expense.

Sargent alleged that Osorio previously had made arrangements to provide health benefits to former employees who did not qualify and that the two reached a verbal agreement in early 2022 to change the resolution and provide Sargent with the benefits he sought. 

Sargent sent Osorio proposed amendments in January 2022, but the discussions did not result in a policy change or an award of benefits to Sargent.

Around the same time, Sargent alleged, Osorio again sought his help expediting a concealed carry permit. Sargent declined and informed the police chief about the request.

After Sargent reported the concealed carry license request, Osorio allegedly stopped communicating with him and abandoned discussions about changing the retirement benefits policy. Sargent contended that the withdrawal of the promised assistance amounted to disability discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

He sued the city and Osorio under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, asserting disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination based on age and disability, disability harassment, retaliation and failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

A trial court sustained the city's demurrer to the complaint, and Sargent appealed.

The 2nd DCA said Sargent's complaint lacked facts that would support a reasonable inference that Osorio denied him paid benefits because of his disability.

The court explained that Sargent's allegations suggested that Osorio withdrew his assistance in securing benefits because Sargent would not perform the requested personal favors, not because of a disability-based bias.

The court emphasized that an employer’s knowledge of an employee’s disability, standing alone, does not establish discriminatory intent and that while FEHA prohibits disability discrimination, it does not guarantee a stress-free workplace or protect employees from every form of harsh treatment.

The court also rejected the disability harassment claim, saying Osorio allegedly started requesting favors before he knew about Sargent’s disabilities. Additionally, Sargent's complaint did not allege disability-based slurs, demeaning language, physical harassment or visual harassment.

Sargent characterized the alleged conduct as quid pro quo harassment, and the court found that he had not supported his theory with pertinent legal authority recognizing such a claim within the context of disability discrimination claim. 

The court also rejected Sargent’s retaliation claim.

According to the court, he alleged that Osorio was willing to help him obtain benefits after the two discussed the policy, but that the discussions ended after Sargent reported Osorio’s concealed carry license request to the police chief. Sargent did not argue that reporting the behavior to the chief constituted protected activity under FEHA.

The court also found that Sargent’s reliance on temporal proximity was insufficient, explaining that about seven months had passed between the initial discussions about amending the resolution and Osorio’s decision to stop helping.

The court concluded that Sargent had not alleged facts showing that Osorio acted specifically to retaliate against him for complaining about discrimination.

Separately, the court explained that the FEHA does not prohibit the alleged preference for older workers and rejected Sargent’s age discrimination claims arising from the retirement policy.

Sargent argued that the policy discriminated against employees ages 40 to 49 because it reserved paid health benefits for qualifying retirees who were at least 50. Although FEHA prohibits employment discrimination based on age and defines the protected class as individuals who have reached age 40, the court concluded that the statute does not establish a claim under these circumstances.

The court also rejected his disparate impact theory, which challenged the policy’s alleged disproportionate effect on employees ages 40 to 49. Because the theory rested on the same asserted preference for comparatively older workers, it did not state a cognizable age discrimination claim.

The court also concluded that the resolution did not discriminate against employees because of disability and said Sargent had not alleged that he received less favorable treatment than a similarly situated nondisabled employee who also retired before age 50.

The court's decision in Michael Sargent v. City of Gardena, B347293, 10/12/2026, unpublished, is here.