Preview
to
evi ai)
tht rors air tl vt
dey me
ar
ROB BONTA FILED/ES" A Se
be
Attorney, Generai of California
KRISTIN
ne AILY,
Superv vn Attorney General AF, § 2023.”
JAMES F. Cul
Deputy’ ‘Attorney General Macdonald
State Bar No.'142041 Deputy Llerk
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550,
Telephot e: 916) 210-61 13.
Fax:, 324 5567. .
E-ma jaime’. ‘Curran@doj, cA. gOV
Attorneys for Defendant
California Highway Patrol
}2
~ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
10 wt re
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
i
12
13
14 DAVID RIDGE. Case No. 34-2019-00265393
15 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY
PATROL'S RESPONSE TO
16 ve PLAINTIFF'S ADDITIONAL DISPUTED
AND UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
7 AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN
THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; OPPOSITION TO CHP’S MOTION FOR
18 and DOES 1-100, inclusive, SUMMARY JUDGMENT
19 Defendants. Date: March 2, 2023
Time: 1:30 p.m
20 ne Dept: 53
Judge: Hon. Richard K. Sueyoshi
21 Trial Date: April 3, 2023
Action Filed: September 23, 2019
22
23 ,, Defendant California Highway Patrol CHP”) submits the following | Response to
24 Plaintitts ‘Additional Disputed and Undisputed Material Facts “and References.to Supporting |
25 Evidence iin Opposition to CHP’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication. The
26 fact that CHP. has not responded to each. of the 758 additional facts cited by Plaintiff does not
27 indicate a waiver of any objection or response by CHP to any of those additional facts or any
28 evidence cited by Plaintiff in support. Ini order'to timely file this response, CHP has focused
1
a CHP's Response.to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393)
te we oe 2Y6
iy
D
cosh Hd 42 E34 eave
1 1
ad a Hh
h
a PIE
rate wt " ia
Cash
below, on facts that are or might be perceived to be material to the issues on which CHP bases its
Motion for Summary-Judgment-or Adjudication
aye Pst
PLAINTIFF'S ADDITIONAL DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND
REFERENCES TO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY :
JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION re
We oe i it
ISSUE NO, RIDGE’S‘CLAIM’ FOR: DISABILITY DISCRIMINATIO ‘SURVIVES,
BECAUSE ‘A TRIABEE“ISSUE OF FACT EXISTS ‘AS TO ‘WHETHER RIDGE WAS
COMPELLED TO ACCEPT INDUSTRIAL
ts DISABILITY RETIREMENT.
PLAINTIFF'S ADDITIONAL i} ‘DEF ENDANT’ S RESPONSE TO
MATERIAL FACT DITIONAL MATERIAL.FACT
10 Ve
.Ridge was first.hired by, CHP. in April Pe
11 1995.
: hee Ci Lu
12 PI porting evidende
¢ Ridge ‘Depo
ii 25;16-20,, we Leage
tad Mu Pu i 4 ie pole
13
2.112009; Ridge started experiencing both |:,.: Fue i iy Ve: nL Th
14
numbness in the left leg and back pain. —
‘The! fortiier ‘s symptoms: ‘were'attributed-to ‘| part
15
meralgia parestheti ie we. sys boii ai
16
Sy pporting,ey. lence:
17
me idge Pepe..26:77, pene ri 1 eat
18 3. Ridge was required, as a patrol la e
with CHP, to wear the Sam Brow
19
utility belt with his equipment on said
20 belt. Ridge suffered cumulative injuries
and pain as‘a result 6f this, aid believed
21 that wearing an ELBV would help to
alleviate that pain.
22
Supporting evidence: Ridge Depo.
23 60: 18-61: 19; Ridge Decl...
24
‘4. Following.a a number of transfers, Ridge’
25 was eventually assigned to the
Placerville, -CA area office.
26
~ Supporting evidence: Ridge Depo.
27 70: 23- a7: 1.
28
2
CHP’s Response ‘to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393)
aes
ate N af
Kid ay hired ta pri
ba sities i nietHt a der.
Inor around 2015, Ridge was diagnosed |
ith, inter alia, lumbar degencrative
disc!disease; lumbar radiculitis, vi
protruding disc, and meralgi
paresthetic; " tctheacet aes
heeradgea gp
Supporting eviden laintiff's EFI-1
Responses:(No.i.204:
yey
From approximately 2014 through his _
forced ‘disability tetirement anuary::
2020), Ridge was not: working the;
road”: as a patrol office: he \was ont
modified du burl ¢ ai Lie
ast p. mle oFy ant et
upporti ge, Depo. ;,
10
vy
i Beth, Bathgate,.M.D., an, orthopedic
evaluator, issue report on December
12
-- 8, 2016 ich sl mmended that
13 Ridgesbe itted ar an-external
vest carries -place of.the:duty belt.
14 CHP received.this report.-:
15 Supporting evidence: Bathgate Depo.
11:8-13:9, Exhibit LL.
16
17 Ridge underwent back surgery in April
2018.
- -
18 sige: nef Mas n
Supporting evidence: Ridge seg! 88:7; .
19 89:1.
20 “Q; Ridge-returned from-recovering-from.
surgery in October-November 2018
2i
22 Supporting evidence: Ridge Depo.”
90:14-17.
23
10. In-January.2019, Ridge relumed to full
24 duty, working the road.
25 Supporting evidence: Ridge Depo.
97:11-22.
26
27 Il The only reasons advanced by CHP as.
to why the external load-bearing vest
28 could not be granted as a reasonable
3
CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393)
Ban: Whe (sta Dep 1
ft
fi
al
Te Pie
in 4 a vt
accommodation for Ridge’s di ability, |
(other, than the; re, existence.of.the
Uniform Policy) are.(1)-a supposed
danger of a suspect grabbing the vest,
(2);the-assertion.that:officers are:trained
to réach: for-theit' equipment ‘placed on
du eir safety might
mp ey: to’ grab:the!
wrong item on an ELBV, and (3) CHP
does not like the appearance of such
betaase they Iook*stoppy”.2 as
- Supporting evidence: Defendant’s
Nses'tO Foim'Interrdgatories
Eriiploynient, ‘Set OnesNos?:204:7:5
ndant’s Responses to Special
10 ies, Set Two,' Nos” 5-8.
Fe,
It
12. Brynne Marotte : (Marotte’) iisan — -
iW | Le
12 employe the fornia ‘Highway pn
Paifol: and is‘an ‘Asgo¢iate
13 Governmental, | Program. Analyst with
; Officice Of Risk Managenient i in
14 the section of Injury and IlIness Case
. 7 Management |Un fap
15
Ave vy pat
16 evidence:
17
7
13>Marotte was identified as one;of'th Wit a4 ty
18
lee vi §
persons who, on behalf of CHP.
participated in the decision to decline to
19 offer an ELBV.as a reasonable
20 “accommodation:
21 Supporting evidence: Defendant’s
Responses to Spécial Interrogatories, Set
22 _ Two, No. 3.
23 14. Marotte never had an opinion as to
whether Ridge should have been
24 permitted to wear an ELBV. All she
25 understood was what the Uniform
Policy stated—that “those \vests. were. .
26 not allowed. ”
27 Supporting evidence: Marotte Depo.,
28
4
CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393)
13
aa
Nl
vy wo
oo
8:12-9:11 Te? ie
Le 7
45 Marotte couldn't ‘say.who! specifically at
CHPawas:im charge of determining
reasonable accommodations for Ridge.
Suppur ing ¢ et ton Lea
Supporting evidence: Marotte Depo.,
17:6-18 1
i ma a dl
16, Marotte doesn tkndw why. CHP’s
Uniform Poli ‘would precludé.the +
wearing Of an.ELBV. Sheinever
bothered to:ask anybody as to why that
should be the SE.
Sungariie! & vt
Supporti 8 |evidence: Marotte. Depo.
10 18:22:19:4.
1 17. Part-of*Marotte’s:job: was evaluating, “14
critical tasks”:that Ridge, as'a CHP
12
Patrol Officer,:needed‘to! be abl
13 perform: physically'so as:té do:his-job.
However; she-never considered what
14 effect his wearing af an ELBV might
have on said physical ability. That was
15 merely because‘the Uniform Policy: did
not permit the wearing of such vests.
16
17 Supporting evidence: Marotte Depo.
33:18-37:16. il 4 hee
[8
18. Marotte never had any direct
19 communications with Ridge regarding
his pliysical condition‘and ability to
20 perform his job.
2
Supporting evidence: Marotte Depo.
22 4115-18.
23 19. Marotte was informed by Lieutenant
Matthew Stover (Ridge’s supervisor)
24 that Ridge told Stover that Ridge
‘cannot complete the necessary job
25 duties” [customary of a patrol officer].
26 She never confirmed that with Ridge
himself or anybody else. -
27
Supporting evidence: Marotte Depo.
28
§
CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393)
ulut
ie 4H vet
ie fi
iy ic
if es
ay uc
40:22-4 ‘46:19-47. Exhi its H L.
daedeet it iv
20. Marotte: understood that:Ridge?s primary
treating-physician prescribed that he’
wear aty outer;vest carrier and duty belt
suspension system to evenly distribute.
the load-and ‘invasive width.of duty:belt
com, ponents.
we vidonee Shy ea.
sis porting evidence: Marotte , Depo.
44:14-25, ExhibitJ.
ie ite it cit |
21. David'!Munis ¢* Muni: sy33
x
an officer
with the California:‘Highway Patroh He
was‘produced by CHP to testify on its
behalf as a “person most
10 kiio ledgeable”-as to all'reasons‘why
CHP*did not offer to allow Ridge to
11 - wear.an external load- bearing vest..He is
12 3 also'the ffi r of 'ptimary interest'for
ihe” “Uniforint ‘Agreement Equipment
w
13 Sian s Manual.”
ypolon
14 Supporting evidence! Munis‘De 431 2-
iS He
44
123'8:10-11
22. Munis has never met or spoken with
16 a ey
Ridge: ev
7
Supporting evidence: Munis Depo. a3
6:15-21. oe
18 Oh ie enn wobir on | eoita at ny
19 23. The only reason why Ridge wasn’t
allowed to wear an ELBV, according to
20 CHP’s deposition testimony, was
21 because “it’s not within policy. That is
not something a patrol officer can
22 wear, so it’s rot available to any patrol
officer to wear an external weight-
23 bearing vest.
24 “Supporting evidence: Muhis Depo.,-3
713-22.
25
26 24. CHP is unable to explain why itwould
have been impossible for it to make an,
27 exception to the Uniform Policy, and
28
6
CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393)
li
tr 4]
bine fen ate
MY clad pat ott ty
wed war de
Pe we idge to we oH in ELB'
tie to
STR DESL T ate my disability.
orting, ce. Munis Depo, 8:2,
1? oie
=o
25 Munis is aware, that other law, Al
efiforcement agencies across the’ ‘country
permit officers to wear ELBVs. He is_
unaware as to any, |kindof problems
the agencies have encountered ini
connection with permitting the wearing
an of ELBVs has ino, opinion as.to
whether such.is a:reasonable piece of. «
equipment.., re
iy sy uy
10 Supp: Bf
3 “1 el
11
26 ¢Wee hte ledges that some of its
12
officers (e:: s. air operations officers,
13 SW, icers, etc.) are permitted to
we: Vs.
14
Supporting evidencé:;Mu inl
15 ti
74
pet
16 27. CHP doesn’ t ‘want its “patrol officers 7
17 wearing ELBVs merely because of the
way they look and “[bjecause it’s not ‘
18 traditional. CHP prides itself on o
wi [ivan tao
tan uniform, And anything that
19 compromises that, does not align.
Mallory has heard comments to this
20 effect over the years, and too many,
21 times to.count (buththundreds).
22 Supporting evidence: Mallory Depo.
31:13-32:10, 61:22-62:18.
23
28. The entire interactive process so as to
determine reasonable accommodations
for Ridge’s. disability was thus: Nickell
25
spoke with Officers Stover and Mueller
26 (Ridge’s supervisors). Those officers
verbally offered Ridge the “Back
27 Defender” as:an “alternate
accommodation. Because ELBVs did
28
7
CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393)
h ad i
rn
Hh pocrl EVR Wei
if
20. hot conform‘ with the’ Uni Policy,
thin
such ‘wa t offered. e-Was
7 HRs yey wy
done:
ad dt P75
Supporting evidence: Nickell Depo.
13:25-F ec ribain cheba
POPE ih
29. On December. 17,2019, Ridge
e
ited lett 0 CHP, stal
ded Ay
Ihave’ nét Tecelv a formal: written.
response‘on any of my written requests
(CHP #1 63)-for:reasonable’s
accommodation: Although’ [CHP] has
expressed prejudice towards providing
a Vest carr! for-reasonable Gir
10 accommodation, it has'nottbéen
formalized iin writing.
11 rpg Ballers
“Therefore! I séek réasonable
12
accommodation so that.I may stay. my. -
13 industtial diability-retirement‘and' '
return wo! asi
ai
14
Howeve i:CHP. neversrtesponded: tosis
1S lett ny fashion: re
Tow. ne
16 Supporting evidence: Nickell Depo.
Depo, Exhibit
17
4, Exhib
18 =
30. It is standard procedure at CHP, and bi
19 practice, to provide a written notice’
when denying a requested
20 accommodation. However, in a
deviation from this.standard procedure,-
21
CHP never gave Ridge a formal written
22 response, to any of this requests, that he
‘would not be allowed 'to wear an ELBV:
23 as,a reasonable accommodation. Nickell.
‘despite being the person most
24 knowledgeable on these topics,.does not
know. why Ridge was denied such
25
written notice: Nickell has otherwise
26 never failed to provide a written:
response to a request for reasonable
27 accommodation.
28
8
CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393)
fer
1,
ro hi
th OL
portin; BK idence:Ye ickell weDepo
‘i
32;11ue 7, » 59:58 -64
'y
31. Captai tover. never. ga kel] any
Justifica
vt ion as. to why Ri ‘ould not
be allowed'to wear an ELBV.
ined Cis mae She
Sup} rting evidence: Nickel Depo,
re -18.
rat a Ihe A
32.
of Ridge
Te S.request for an ECB Vias'a, dh The cited portion of the Nickell
ie ‘ace
ier n iwa: never deposition transcript reveals Plaintiff's
gi
erode IOUSPs CO! ion. It was counsel asked Ms. Nickell for an opinion
retlexively se it did not and CHP’s counsel objected to the
CHP,
tr me
a licy. question on that basis, among others. She
sua te day responded that she “did not know” if the
10 Suppo! ice: Nickell Depo. request for an ELBV was given serious
Ryan
4, Stov: consideration. The cited portion of the
11 ere ra el wy
as mw ibeh Nickell deposition thus is not evidence
12 ite that CHP “never” seriously considered
Khe whi 48 yal Plaintiff's request for an ELBV. It was
13 he w a widely known that ELBVs were not
1M MW ol yoy approved for use by CHP patrol officers.
14
va ae 1
One ft far Plaintiff moved to compel Stover’s further
15 deposition to get him to answer questions
16 recorded on the cited pages, pp. 34-35. of
we
his transcript:’ These. questions concerned
17 whether Stover believed it would have
oo been reasonable to allow. Plaintiff to wear
rd we
18 1 | aa Pha an ELBV:* CHP’s‘counsel objected ‘oii the |
bases that the questions sought improper
19 opinion testimony and/or a legal
20 conclusion. This,court agreed and denied.
the motion to compel. Stover testified he
21 did not have an opinion on the subject.
The cited Stover testimony is not
22 evidence for the assertion CHP never
seriously considered Plaintiff's request for
23
an ELBV. The question of Stover
24 recorded on page 43 asked if Stover
understood that Plaintiff's ELBV request
25 was denied solely due to the fact ELBVs
were “against” uniform policy. Stover
26 answered in the affirmative, and the fact
that CHP has never approved ELBVs for
27
patrol officers is undisputed and was well
28 known. This does not mean Plaintiff's
9
CHP's Response to Plaintiffs Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393)
ste wt
mals el ret bias
uw n
HL
Ww
iy
ids a
request was not’ ‘given TOU!
con sideration
ray Lae
33 On April 9, 2019, Ridge submitted to This document contradicts Ride’ sé iy
CHP a Reasonable Accommodation assertion in Fact 89 that his -meralgia
Request (Form CHP 163). Within the parésthetica ‘was “always the’ ri
limited space available in the form. problém.”
rede jog
Ridge wrote, inter alia, the following:
“I am restricted in movement due to the 4 ie a
Sam Browne gun-belt, which triggers rie v1
painful surges of spinal, hip and o
favs it a
buttocks pain,
vis ay vat
“Putting the Sam Browne belt on causes re $4
rotational pain to the L2 area of my
10 lumbar back. fy
us ty
11 “I have had surgery to the lumbar area i Th
of my spine, while suffering weakness, Wain
12
burning and numbness to my left leg,
13 pain in both hips and buttocks. vw shes
he hog tv ral
14 “However, since my return from [back] Vit
surgery I have had increasing pain and wi
IS bilateral radiculopathy into my lower al rl
back and legs. Pressure and weight
16
substantially contributed to the lumbar ray od
17 injuries and iinjury to the left leg, hips ret
and buttocks.
4
18
“The Sam Browne belt weighs almost, , fev ial | Hy
19 thirty pounds and entraps the nerve and
depresses the muscle tisshe in the leg
20 while forcing unnatural sitting positions
21 while writing ‘and sitting in office chairs
and in the patrol vehicle
22
“The weight- bearing vest. increases:
23 mobility for performance of duties while.
limiting weight, pressure on hips, belt
24 line and causing herniation of the
lumbar.
25
26 “Wearing a load-bearing will alleviate
the triggering spinal mobility that causes
27 shooting pain,-alleviate unhealthy,
numbing and painful loading on the
28
10
CHP’s Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393)
HE a l!
rave feel
ty le iat
‘
femoral. nerve; ‘and, lumbar. spine, ‘and
alleviate dangerous and painful upper
body: ie
coll ea
Support rey Ce: uS Dep
14. 13, Exhi E,(p) 3),
34.A x submittin; first reques
permii
Pee ) wear an ELBV as a
reasonable ‘accommodation, both Stover
and Mueller in ed Ridge
requ
© yc ‘OU eh
~beci
jad stated.
vi
not: patrol, offi wearing...
suc! ‘Sts, aS, W the Sam Browne
10 belt is more traditional.
Th weigh ne var ir
I Supporting evidence: intiff 5, EFI-1
12 Resp: bari
13 35.0 rf around May 2, 2019, Ridge
a note from Roderick Sanden,
14 support. of his uest for
reaso! le accom: 5 al
1S imme el rect
16 fs Jo! Muel
--
17 Supporting evidence: Plaintiff's EFI-1
Responses, No. 202.1; Ridge Decl., 1
AR cess in wl i vd Me
18 10, Exhibit F.
19 36. On or around June 21, 2019, Ridge The alleged statement about CHP “fast:
... $poke,with Sgt. Mueller and inquired as, tracking” ” Plaintiffto retirement is
20 to the status of his request for reasonable ambiguous and lacks foundation. “Even
21 accommodation (for an ELBV). At this drawing all inferences in Plaintiff's favor,
+ time, Sgt, Mueller began to pressure. it does not evidence any intent on CHP’s
22 Plaintiff, stating that:he
t needed to be part to force Plaintiff to retire.
“honest” with his doctors and tell them:
23 that he could:not perform the duties of
his job. Ridge expressed his belief that.
24
he was able to perform the essential
25 duties of his job, with reasonable
accommodation. Nevertheless, Sgt.
26 Mueller told Ridge that CHP was "fast-
tracking” him to retirement.
27
Supporting evidence: Plaintiff's EFI-1
28
i
CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393)
Ms v
i ay Tbrerevr.
te
A pave OF Lich aaa
hy
_Responses, No. 202.1,
34 OF Pa
37. On-Octoberul ; 20 Fsomebo: eka
checked “Denied*on Ridge’s CHP
Form] 63; requesting that, for explicit
and detailed medical: réasons; ‘he jbe«
permitted 'to wear am ELBV as a
reasonable accommodation. No
explanation‘for the'denial was given.
For redsons unclear, CHP’ s Equal:
Employment Opportunity Office punted
_ the request to the Injury and Illness Case
a te cy
Manage f Unit. Nickell ses not
bn id
retall any‘otlier FeaSotiable:
acddrnmodatidn requests, f sabilities it 1s
caiised by‘ “oni-th b' injuries, bi u
10 He GL in
feferre
tet ‘that
unt fa thal te
11
Supporting evidence: ickell Depot
12 43: 8) Exhibit EE (pp. 2
Rider wt
13 38. On Sepiimber 19, "Nickell thada
_phone cali with BryriniMarotte from the
14 Injury: and'l]Iness'Case Management
Unit, regarding-Ridge and his request:to
15
wear.an ELBV.:Marotte:informed
16 Nickell that the State Compensation
Insuraricé Fund said‘they-could not |
17 provide an ELBV for Ridge, because it
i
did not conform with CHP’s Uniform
18 Policy. No justification for this:was..;.2 1 |*| ‘ # | iv aes
provided
19
20 Supporting evidence: Nickell Depo.
25:18-32:5; Exhibit EE (p7006)
21
39. Theresa Melendez (of CHP’s Equal
22 Employment} Opportunity. Office)
annotated, in the ‘course of the
23 interactive process, ‘that “EE, [Ridge] has
24 doctor’s appt 4/16/19. Lt. [Matthew] °
Stover will accompany [Ridge] and
25 speak to doctor and will inform the
doctor that he believes ee cannot
26 perform duties.” Nickell has never heard
of-that happening in any other case. She
27
does not believe that was appropriate.
28 Instead of going himself, Stover
12
CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393)
re ta I
4 Tia
rl tet
wedrkgact
m8
instructed Sgt. John Mueller, Ridge’s
Serge: iréct supervisor,to.
ace! idge to,the doctors
nt. Thi as one.of perhap:
twelv Sate ia
Mus accomp: e,to, doctor
ments, and on nearly every, such
Set.Mi would aye
conversation: the, doctor...
Ridge, doesinot |know the, substance ‘of
each con, ersation, but, Dr., Nkadi told
Ridge; the felt that Sat “Mueller was
invading Ridge’s medical privacy.
Nt we bed Ms
Supp ling evidence: ickell, Depo.
44:11-45:12, 48:2-15, Exhibit EE (p.
10 28); Stover:Depo. 93:5-7; Defendant’ Ss
SI-2:Responses. ja; 4; Ri ge Decl., |
11
int
12
40. An “altemative accommodation” that
13 CHP. claims ffered,was
of that of the
“Back,De! an; under-the- shirt
14 suspender system, However, this still
15
requi officer. wear.the.Sam,,,,
Broy ility, all:the required;
16 equip ton belt WY ca al
1d
17 Supporting evidence: ickell Depo
52: 17 53:6.
18 woe
4) The Back Defender was not a reasonable
19 accommodation for Ridge’s disability,
20 with particular regard to his meralgia
paresthetica. This is because Ridge pe
21 would still have been required to wear
the Sam Browne utility belt with all of
22 his required equipment—sidearm, radio,
taser, handcuffs, pepper spray, etc.—on.
23 that belt. It'was this thick; heavy, leather
24 belt and the approximate 20 pounds’ of
equipment on it that impinged upon
25 Ridge’s femoral nerve and caused and
exacerbated his meralgia paresthetica,
26
Supporting evidence: Ridge Depo
27 133:8-134:4, 137:3-149:16; Ridge Decl
28
13
CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393)
Tp
bia? en “l bn
Bis TATE
seat ie
lt
1 uh 4. ery ir
mete
42. Captain) Matthew Stover was Gs an
lieutenant)-Ridge’s commander in the
Placervillecarea. er UC re
n
it thy wet
Suppc position of
Matthew Stover (Stover Depo. 5:21-
72s ty
a
43 Stover has made perhaps a thousand
arrests, ove ith Urse: cal Sle
Loerie le
Sto, Dep +
t vt
44 Stover un tood that, nt a back
10 injut hi Or, ich,
Titerhi as requ 2.0:
Ww
r ei Welatio! it
11 hacer nee Y wt
Supporting evidence: tover Dep
12 te m id
My
13
45. A'CHP Patrol1 Offi al aITIes.
a
iy
14 on th
‘son, at
duty weapon, iw to" four magazines of
15 PUL munition,
OLE TE Ia handcuffs. ‘oleoresin
capsicum, , and,
16 taser.
17 Supporting evidence: Stover Depo. t
18 14:12-15:3; Ridge Decl {4 lalil
wk na
19 46 Stover does not know why CHP’
Uniform Policy does not permit any
20 Patrol-Officer-to.wear a weight-bearing
vest.
21
Supporting evidence: Stover Depo.
22
22:10-18.
23
47, Stover claims.that Ridge was offered the This “fact” is not material to any basis «‘on
24 Back Defender as an alternate which CHP has filed this dispositive
accommodation, but admits he does not motion. Whether Stover could predict the
25 know whether such would be as efficacy of the Back Defender in
effective an accommodation as the Plaintiff's case is not material to whether
26
ELBV that Ridge specifically and it was a reasonable alternative
27 repeatedly requested. accommodation. CHP’s counsel objected
to the question in the cited portion of the
28 Supporting evidence: Stover Depo.
Preview
to evi ai) tht rors air tl vt dey me ar ROB BONTA FILED/ES" A Se be Attorney, Generai of California KRISTIN ne AILY, Superv vn Attorney General AF, § 2023.” JAMES F. Cul Deputy’ ‘Attorney General Macdonald State Bar No.'142041 Deputy Llerk 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550, Telephot e: 916) 210-61 13. Fax:, 324 5567. . E-ma jaime’. ‘Curran@doj, cA. gOV Attorneys for Defendant California Highway Patrol }2 ~ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 10 wt re COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO i 12 13 14 DAVID RIDGE. Case No. 34-2019-00265393 15 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL'S RESPONSE TO 16 ve PLAINTIFF'S ADDITIONAL DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 7 AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; OPPOSITION TO CHP’S MOTION FOR 18 and DOES 1-100, inclusive, SUMMARY JUDGMENT 19 Defendants. Date: March 2, 2023 Time: 1:30 p.m 20 ne Dept: 53 Judge: Hon. Richard K. Sueyoshi 21 Trial Date: April 3, 2023 Action Filed: September 23, 2019 22 23 ,, Defendant California Highway Patrol CHP”) submits the following | Response to 24 Plaintitts ‘Additional Disputed and Undisputed Material Facts “and References.to Supporting | 25 Evidence iin Opposition to CHP’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication. The 26 fact that CHP. has not responded to each. of the 758 additional facts cited by Plaintiff does not 27 indicate a waiver of any objection or response by CHP to any of those additional facts or any 28 evidence cited by Plaintiff in support. Ini order'to timely file this response, CHP has focused 1 a CHP's Response.to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393) te we oe 2Y6 iy D cosh Hd 42 E34 eave 1 1 ad a Hh h a PIE rate wt " ia Cash below, on facts that are or might be perceived to be material to the issues on which CHP bases its Motion for Summary-Judgment-or Adjudication aye Pst PLAINTIFF'S ADDITIONAL DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND REFERENCES TO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY : JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION re We oe i it ISSUE NO, RIDGE’S‘CLAIM’ FOR: DISABILITY DISCRIMINATIO ‘SURVIVES, BECAUSE ‘A TRIABEE“ISSUE OF FACT EXISTS ‘AS TO ‘WHETHER RIDGE WAS COMPELLED TO ACCEPT INDUSTRIAL ts DISABILITY RETIREMENT. PLAINTIFF'S ADDITIONAL i} ‘DEF ENDANT’ S RESPONSE TO MATERIAL FACT DITIONAL MATERIAL.FACT 10 Ve .Ridge was first.hired by, CHP. in April Pe 11 1995. : hee Ci Lu 12 PI porting evidende ¢ Ridge ‘Depo ii 25;16-20,, we Leage tad Mu Pu i 4 ie pole 13 2.112009; Ridge started experiencing both |:,.: Fue i iy Ve: nL Th 14 numbness in the left leg and back pain. — ‘The! fortiier ‘s symptoms: ‘were'attributed-to ‘| part 15 meralgia parestheti ie we. sys boii ai 16 Sy pporting,ey. lence: 17 me idge Pepe..26:77, pene ri 1 eat 18 3. Ridge was required, as a patrol la e with CHP, to wear the Sam Brow 19 utility belt with his equipment on said 20 belt. Ridge suffered cumulative injuries and pain as‘a result 6f this, aid believed 21 that wearing an ELBV would help to alleviate that pain. 22 Supporting evidence: Ridge Depo. 23 60: 18-61: 19; Ridge Decl... 24 ‘4. Following.a a number of transfers, Ridge’ 25 was eventually assigned to the Placerville, -CA area office. 26 ~ Supporting evidence: Ridge Depo. 27 70: 23- a7: 1. 28 2 CHP’s Response ‘to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393) aes ate N af Kid ay hired ta pri ba sities i nietHt a der. Inor around 2015, Ridge was diagnosed | ith, inter alia, lumbar degencrative disc!disease; lumbar radiculitis, vi protruding disc, and meralgi paresthetic; " tctheacet aes heeradgea gp Supporting eviden laintiff's EFI-1 Responses:(No.i.204: yey From approximately 2014 through his _ forced ‘disability tetirement anuary:: 2020), Ridge was not: working the; road”: as a patrol office: he \was ont modified du burl ¢ ai Lie ast p. mle oFy ant et upporti ge, Depo. ;, 10 vy i Beth, Bathgate,.M.D., an, orthopedic evaluator, issue report on December 12 -- 8, 2016 ich sl mmended that 13 Ridgesbe itted ar an-external vest carries -place of.the:duty belt. 14 CHP received.this report.-: 15 Supporting evidence: Bathgate Depo. 11:8-13:9, Exhibit LL. 16 17 Ridge underwent back surgery in April 2018. - - 18 sige: nef Mas n Supporting evidence: Ridge seg! 88:7; . 19 89:1. 20 “Q; Ridge-returned from-recovering-from. surgery in October-November 2018 2i 22 Supporting evidence: Ridge Depo.” 90:14-17. 23 10. In-January.2019, Ridge relumed to full 24 duty, working the road. 25 Supporting evidence: Ridge Depo. 97:11-22. 26 27 Il The only reasons advanced by CHP as. to why the external load-bearing vest 28 could not be granted as a reasonable 3 CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393) Ban: Whe (sta Dep 1 ft fi al Te Pie in 4 a vt accommodation for Ridge’s di ability, | (other, than the; re, existence.of.the Uniform Policy) are.(1)-a supposed danger of a suspect grabbing the vest, (2);the-assertion.that:officers are:trained to réach: for-theit' equipment ‘placed on du eir safety might mp ey: to’ grab:the! wrong item on an ELBV, and (3) CHP does not like the appearance of such betaase they Iook*stoppy”.2 as - Supporting evidence: Defendant’s Nses'tO Foim'Interrdgatories Eriiploynient, ‘Set OnesNos?:204:7:5 ndant’s Responses to Special 10 ies, Set Two,' Nos” 5-8. Fe, It 12. Brynne Marotte : (Marotte’) iisan — - iW | Le 12 employe the fornia ‘Highway pn Paifol: and is‘an ‘Asgo¢iate 13 Governmental, | Program. Analyst with ; Officice Of Risk Managenient i in 14 the section of Injury and IlIness Case . 7 Management |Un fap 15 Ave vy pat 16 evidence: 17 7 13>Marotte was identified as one;of'th Wit a4 ty 18 lee vi § persons who, on behalf of CHP. participated in the decision to decline to 19 offer an ELBV.as a reasonable 20 “accommodation: 21 Supporting evidence: Defendant’s Responses to Spécial Interrogatories, Set 22 _ Two, No. 3. 23 14. Marotte never had an opinion as to whether Ridge should have been 24 permitted to wear an ELBV. All she 25 understood was what the Uniform Policy stated—that “those \vests. were. . 26 not allowed. ” 27 Supporting evidence: Marotte Depo., 28 4 CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393) 13 aa Nl vy wo oo 8:12-9:11 Te? ie Le 7 45 Marotte couldn't ‘say.who! specifically at CHPawas:im charge of determining reasonable accommodations for Ridge. Suppur ing ¢ et ton Lea Supporting evidence: Marotte Depo., 17:6-18 1 i ma a dl 16, Marotte doesn tkndw why. CHP’s Uniform Poli ‘would precludé.the + wearing Of an.ELBV. Sheinever bothered to:ask anybody as to why that should be the SE. Sungariie! & vt Supporti 8 |evidence: Marotte. Depo. 10 18:22:19:4. 1 17. Part-of*Marotte’s:job: was evaluating, “14 critical tasks”:that Ridge, as'a CHP 12 Patrol Officer,:needed‘to! be abl 13 perform: physically'so as:té do:his-job. However; she-never considered what 14 effect his wearing af an ELBV might have on said physical ability. That was 15 merely because‘the Uniform Policy: did not permit the wearing of such vests. 16 17 Supporting evidence: Marotte Depo. 33:18-37:16. il 4 hee [8 18. Marotte never had any direct 19 communications with Ridge regarding his pliysical condition‘and ability to 20 perform his job. 2 Supporting evidence: Marotte Depo. 22 4115-18. 23 19. Marotte was informed by Lieutenant Matthew Stover (Ridge’s supervisor) 24 that Ridge told Stover that Ridge ‘cannot complete the necessary job 25 duties” [customary of a patrol officer]. 26 She never confirmed that with Ridge himself or anybody else. - 27 Supporting evidence: Marotte Depo. 28 § CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393) ulut ie 4H vet ie fi iy ic if es ay uc 40:22-4 ‘46:19-47. Exhi its H L. daedeet it iv 20. Marotte: understood that:Ridge?s primary treating-physician prescribed that he’ wear aty outer;vest carrier and duty belt suspension system to evenly distribute. the load-and ‘invasive width.of duty:belt com, ponents. we vidonee Shy ea. sis porting evidence: Marotte , Depo. 44:14-25, ExhibitJ. ie ite it cit | 21. David'!Munis ¢* Muni: sy33 x an officer with the California:‘Highway Patroh He was‘produced by CHP to testify on its behalf as a “person most 10 kiio ledgeable”-as to all'reasons‘why CHP*did not offer to allow Ridge to 11 - wear.an external load- bearing vest..He is 12 3 also'the ffi r of 'ptimary interest'for ihe” “Uniforint ‘Agreement Equipment w 13 Sian s Manual.” ypolon 14 Supporting evidence! Munis‘De 431 2- iS He 44 123'8:10-11 22. Munis has never met or spoken with 16 a ey Ridge: ev 7 Supporting evidence: Munis Depo. a3 6:15-21. oe 18 Oh ie enn wobir on | eoita at ny 19 23. The only reason why Ridge wasn’t allowed to wear an ELBV, according to 20 CHP’s deposition testimony, was 21 because “it’s not within policy. That is not something a patrol officer can 22 wear, so it’s rot available to any patrol officer to wear an external weight- 23 bearing vest. 24 “Supporting evidence: Muhis Depo.,-3 713-22. 25 26 24. CHP is unable to explain why itwould have been impossible for it to make an, 27 exception to the Uniform Policy, and 28 6 CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393) li tr 4] bine fen ate MY clad pat ott ty wed war de Pe we idge to we oH in ELB' tie to STR DESL T ate my disability. orting, ce. Munis Depo, 8:2, 1? oie =o 25 Munis is aware, that other law, Al efiforcement agencies across the’ ‘country permit officers to wear ELBVs. He is_ unaware as to any, |kindof problems the agencies have encountered ini connection with permitting the wearing an of ELBVs has ino, opinion as.to whether such.is a:reasonable piece of. « equipment.., re iy sy uy 10 Supp: Bf 3 “1 el 11 26 ¢Wee hte ledges that some of its 12 officers (e:: s. air operations officers, 13 SW, icers, etc.) are permitted to we: Vs. 14 Supporting evidencé:;Mu inl 15 ti 74 pet 16 27. CHP doesn’ t ‘want its “patrol officers 7 17 wearing ELBVs merely because of the way they look and “[bjecause it’s not ‘ 18 traditional. CHP prides itself on o wi [ivan tao tan uniform, And anything that 19 compromises that, does not align. Mallory has heard comments to this 20 effect over the years, and too many, 21 times to.count (buththundreds). 22 Supporting evidence: Mallory Depo. 31:13-32:10, 61:22-62:18. 23 28. The entire interactive process so as to determine reasonable accommodations for Ridge’s. disability was thus: Nickell 25 spoke with Officers Stover and Mueller 26 (Ridge’s supervisors). Those officers verbally offered Ridge the “Back 27 Defender” as:an “alternate accommodation. Because ELBVs did 28 7 CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393) h ad i rn Hh pocrl EVR Wei if 20. hot conform‘ with the’ Uni Policy, thin such ‘wa t offered. e-Was 7 HRs yey wy done: ad dt P75 Supporting evidence: Nickell Depo. 13:25-F ec ribain cheba POPE ih 29. On December. 17,2019, Ridge e ited lett 0 CHP, stal ded Ay Ihave’ nét Tecelv a formal: written. response‘on any of my written requests (CHP #1 63)-for:reasonable’s accommodation: Although’ [CHP] has expressed prejudice towards providing a Vest carr! for-reasonable Gir 10 accommodation, it has'nottbéen formalized iin writing. 11 rpg Ballers “Therefore! I séek réasonable 12 accommodation so that.I may stay. my. - 13 industtial diability-retirement‘and' ' return wo! asi ai 14 Howeve i:CHP. neversrtesponded: tosis 1S lett ny fashion: re Tow. ne 16 Supporting evidence: Nickell Depo. Depo, Exhibit 17 4, Exhib 18 = 30. It is standard procedure at CHP, and bi 19 practice, to provide a written notice’ when denying a requested 20 accommodation. However, in a deviation from this.standard procedure,- 21 CHP never gave Ridge a formal written 22 response, to any of this requests, that he ‘would not be allowed 'to wear an ELBV: 23 as,a reasonable accommodation. Nickell. ‘despite being the person most 24 knowledgeable on these topics,.does not know. why Ridge was denied such 25 written notice: Nickell has otherwise 26 never failed to provide a written: response to a request for reasonable 27 accommodation. 28 8 CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393) fer 1, ro hi th OL portin; BK idence:Ye ickell weDepo ‘i 32;11ue 7, » 59:58 -64 'y 31. Captai tover. never. ga kel] any Justifica vt ion as. to why Ri ‘ould not be allowed'to wear an ELBV. ined Cis mae She Sup} rting evidence: Nickel Depo, re -18. rat a Ihe A 32. of Ridge Te S.request for an ECB Vias'a, dh The cited portion of the Nickell ie ‘ace ier n iwa: never deposition transcript reveals Plaintiff's gi erode IOUSPs CO! ion. It was counsel asked Ms. Nickell for an opinion retlexively se it did not and CHP’s counsel objected to the CHP, tr me a licy. question on that basis, among others. She sua te day responded that she “did not know” if the 10 Suppo! ice: Nickell Depo. request for an ELBV was given serious Ryan 4, Stov: consideration. The cited portion of the 11 ere ra el wy as mw ibeh Nickell deposition thus is not evidence 12 ite that CHP “never” seriously considered Khe whi 48 yal Plaintiff's request for an ELBV. It was 13 he w a widely known that ELBVs were not 1M MW ol yoy approved for use by CHP patrol officers. 14 va ae 1 One ft far Plaintiff moved to compel Stover’s further 15 deposition to get him to answer questions 16 recorded on the cited pages, pp. 34-35. of we his transcript:’ These. questions concerned 17 whether Stover believed it would have oo been reasonable to allow. Plaintiff to wear rd we 18 1 | aa Pha an ELBV:* CHP’s‘counsel objected ‘oii the | bases that the questions sought improper 19 opinion testimony and/or a legal 20 conclusion. This,court agreed and denied. the motion to compel. Stover testified he 21 did not have an opinion on the subject. The cited Stover testimony is not 22 evidence for the assertion CHP never seriously considered Plaintiff's request for 23 an ELBV. The question of Stover 24 recorded on page 43 asked if Stover understood that Plaintiff's ELBV request 25 was denied solely due to the fact ELBVs were “against” uniform policy. Stover 26 answered in the affirmative, and the fact that CHP has never approved ELBVs for 27 patrol officers is undisputed and was well 28 known. This does not mean Plaintiff's 9 CHP's Response to Plaintiffs Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393) ste wt mals el ret bias uw n HL Ww iy ids a request was not’ ‘given TOU! con sideration ray Lae 33 On April 9, 2019, Ridge submitted to This document contradicts Ride’ sé iy CHP a Reasonable Accommodation assertion in Fact 89 that his -meralgia Request (Form CHP 163). Within the parésthetica ‘was “always the’ ri limited space available in the form. problém.” rede jog Ridge wrote, inter alia, the following: “I am restricted in movement due to the 4 ie a Sam Browne gun-belt, which triggers rie v1 painful surges of spinal, hip and o favs it a buttocks pain, vis ay vat “Putting the Sam Browne belt on causes re $4 rotational pain to the L2 area of my 10 lumbar back. fy us ty 11 “I have had surgery to the lumbar area i Th of my spine, while suffering weakness, Wain 12 burning and numbness to my left leg, 13 pain in both hips and buttocks. vw shes he hog tv ral 14 “However, since my return from [back] Vit surgery I have had increasing pain and wi IS bilateral radiculopathy into my lower al rl back and legs. Pressure and weight 16 substantially contributed to the lumbar ray od 17 injuries and iinjury to the left leg, hips ret and buttocks. 4 18 “The Sam Browne belt weighs almost, , fev ial | Hy 19 thirty pounds and entraps the nerve and depresses the muscle tisshe in the leg 20 while forcing unnatural sitting positions 21 while writing ‘and sitting in office chairs and in the patrol vehicle 22 “The weight- bearing vest. increases: 23 mobility for performance of duties while. limiting weight, pressure on hips, belt 24 line and causing herniation of the lumbar. 25 26 “Wearing a load-bearing will alleviate the triggering spinal mobility that causes 27 shooting pain,-alleviate unhealthy, numbing and painful loading on the 28 10 CHP’s Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393) HE a l! rave feel ty le iat ‘ femoral. nerve; ‘and, lumbar. spine, ‘and alleviate dangerous and painful upper body: ie coll ea Support rey Ce: uS Dep 14. 13, Exhi E,(p) 3), 34.A x submittin; first reques permii Pee ) wear an ELBV as a reasonable ‘accommodation, both Stover and Mueller in ed Ridge requ © yc ‘OU eh ~beci jad stated. vi not: patrol, offi wearing... suc! ‘Sts, aS, W the Sam Browne 10 belt is more traditional. Th weigh ne var ir I Supporting evidence: intiff 5, EFI-1 12 Resp: bari 13 35.0 rf around May 2, 2019, Ridge a note from Roderick Sanden, 14 support. of his uest for reaso! le accom: 5 al 1S imme el rect 16 fs Jo! Muel -- 17 Supporting evidence: Plaintiff's EFI-1 Responses, No. 202.1; Ridge Decl., 1 AR cess in wl i vd Me 18 10, Exhibit F. 19 36. On or around June 21, 2019, Ridge The alleged statement about CHP “fast: ... $poke,with Sgt. Mueller and inquired as, tracking” ” Plaintiffto retirement is 20 to the status of his request for reasonable ambiguous and lacks foundation. “Even 21 accommodation (for an ELBV). At this drawing all inferences in Plaintiff's favor, + time, Sgt, Mueller began to pressure. it does not evidence any intent on CHP’s 22 Plaintiff, stating that:he t needed to be part to force Plaintiff to retire. “honest” with his doctors and tell them: 23 that he could:not perform the duties of his job. Ridge expressed his belief that. 24 he was able to perform the essential 25 duties of his job, with reasonable accommodation. Nevertheless, Sgt. 26 Mueller told Ridge that CHP was "fast- tracking” him to retirement. 27 Supporting evidence: Plaintiff's EFI-1 28 i CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393) Ms v i ay Tbrerevr. te A pave OF Lich aaa hy _Responses, No. 202.1, 34 OF Pa 37. On-Octoberul ; 20 Fsomebo: eka checked “Denied*on Ridge’s CHP Form] 63; requesting that, for explicit and detailed medical: réasons; ‘he jbe« permitted 'to wear am ELBV as a reasonable accommodation. No explanation‘for the'denial was given. For redsons unclear, CHP’ s Equal: Employment Opportunity Office punted _ the request to the Injury and Illness Case a te cy Manage f Unit. Nickell ses not bn id retall any‘otlier FeaSotiable: acddrnmodatidn requests, f sabilities it 1s caiised by‘ “oni-th b' injuries, bi u 10 He GL in feferre tet ‘that unt fa thal te 11 Supporting evidence: ickell Depot 12 43: 8) Exhibit EE (pp. 2 Rider wt 13 38. On Sepiimber 19, "Nickell thada _phone cali with BryriniMarotte from the 14 Injury: and'l]Iness'Case Management Unit, regarding-Ridge and his request:to 15 wear.an ELBV.:Marotte:informed 16 Nickell that the State Compensation Insuraricé Fund said‘they-could not | 17 provide an ELBV for Ridge, because it i did not conform with CHP’s Uniform 18 Policy. No justification for this:was..;.2 1 |*| ‘ # | iv aes provided 19 20 Supporting evidence: Nickell Depo. 25:18-32:5; Exhibit EE (p7006) 21 39. Theresa Melendez (of CHP’s Equal 22 Employment} Opportunity. Office) annotated, in the ‘course of the 23 interactive process, ‘that “EE, [Ridge] has 24 doctor’s appt 4/16/19. Lt. [Matthew] ° Stover will accompany [Ridge] and 25 speak to doctor and will inform the doctor that he believes ee cannot 26 perform duties.” Nickell has never heard of-that happening in any other case. She 27 does not believe that was appropriate. 28 Instead of going himself, Stover 12 CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393) re ta I 4 Tia rl tet wedrkgact m8 instructed Sgt. John Mueller, Ridge’s Serge: iréct supervisor,to. ace! idge to,the doctors nt. Thi as one.of perhap: twelv Sate ia Mus accomp: e,to, doctor ments, and on nearly every, such Set.Mi would aye conversation: the, doctor... Ridge, doesinot |know the, substance ‘of each con, ersation, but, Dr., Nkadi told Ridge; the felt that Sat “Mueller was invading Ridge’s medical privacy. Nt we bed Ms Supp ling evidence: ickell, Depo. 44:11-45:12, 48:2-15, Exhibit EE (p. 10 28); Stover:Depo. 93:5-7; Defendant’ Ss SI-2:Responses. ja; 4; Ri ge Decl., | 11 int 12 40. An “altemative accommodation” that 13 CHP. claims ffered,was of that of the “Back,De! an; under-the- shirt 14 suspender system, However, this still 15 requi officer. wear.the.Sam,,,, Broy ility, all:the required; 16 equip ton belt WY ca al 1d 17 Supporting evidence: ickell Depo 52: 17 53:6. 18 woe 4) The Back Defender was not a reasonable 19 accommodation for Ridge’s disability, 20 with particular regard to his meralgia paresthetica. This is because Ridge pe 21 would still have been required to wear the Sam Browne utility belt with all of 22 his required equipment—sidearm, radio, taser, handcuffs, pepper spray, etc.—on. 23 that belt. It'was this thick; heavy, leather 24 belt and the approximate 20 pounds’ of equipment on it that impinged upon 25 Ridge’s femoral nerve and caused and exacerbated his meralgia paresthetica, 26 Supporting evidence: Ridge Depo 27 133:8-134:4, 137:3-149:16; Ridge Decl 28 13 CHP's Response to Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts (34-2019-00265393) Tp bia? en “l bn Bis TATE seat ie lt 1 uh 4. ery ir mete 42. Captain) Matthew Stover was Gs an lieutenant)-Ridge’s commander in the Placervillecarea. er UC re n it thy wet Suppc position of Matthew Stover (Stover Depo. 5:21- 72s ty a 43 Stover has made perhaps a thousand arrests, ove ith Urse: cal Sle Loerie le Sto, Dep + t vt 44 Stover un tood that, nt a back 10 injut hi Or, ich, Titerhi as requ 2.0: Ww r ei Welatio! it 11 hacer nee Y wt Supporting evidence: tover Dep 12 te m id My 13 45. A'CHP Patrol1 Offi al aITIes. a iy 14 on th ‘son, at duty weapon, iw to" four magazines of 15 PUL munition, OLE TE Ia handcuffs. ‘oleoresin capsicum, , and, 16 taser. 17 Supporting evidence: Stover Depo. t 18 14:12-15:3; Ridge Decl {4 lalil wk na 19 46 Stover does not know why CHP’ Uniform Policy does not permit any 20 Patrol-Officer-to.wear a weight-bearing vest. 21 Supporting evidence: Stover Depo. 22 22:10-18. 23 47, Stover claims.that Ridge was offered the This “fact” is not material to any basis «‘on 24 Back Defender as an alternate which CHP has filed this dispositive accommodation, but admits he does not motion. Whether Stover could predict the 25 know whether such would be as efficacy of the Back Defender in effective an accommodation as the Plaintiff's case is not material to whether 26 ELBV that Ridge specifically and it was a reasonable alternative 27 repeatedly requested. accommodation. CHP’s counsel objected to the question in the cited portion of the 28 Supporting evidence: Stover Depo.