City of Milpitas – Discrimination

Overview

In 2015, David Browne, alongside co-counsel Kathy Dickson, filed a lawsuit against the City of Milpitas in Santa Clara County Superior Court on behalf of a 55-year-old long-term city employee. The case alleged unlawful age discrimination and retaliation in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Allegations

Our client, a dedicated and highly experienced municipal employee, was laid off under suspicious circumstances—despite having a stellar performance history and more seniority than others who retained their jobs. Management claimed she was “of sufficient age to retire,” an assertion we argued was a clear act of age-based discrimination. We further alleged that once our client raised concerns about the fairness of the layoff, the City retaliated by finalizing her termination.

Legal Significance

This case underscores a disturbing trend in public-sector employment: using retirement eligibility as a proxy for age in employment decisions. We argued that such reasoning is not only unjust—it’s unlawful. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigated and issued a finding supporting our client’s claim, concluding that the City had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

Outcome

The case resulted in a seven-figure settlement including restored retirement benefits, holding the City accountable, and bringing long-overdue justice to our client. The outcome serves as a powerful example of what experienced employment attorneys can achieve for workers wronged by their employers.

* Descriptions and summaries of prior cases and settlements found on this website are intended only to provide information about the activities and experience of our attorneys and should not be understood as a guarantee or assurance of future success in any matter. The results portrayed were dependent on a variety of facts and circumstances unique to the particular matters described, and do not reflect the entire record of the individual attorney(s) involved. Past results are not a guarantee of future results, and the outcome of your particular case or matter cannot be predicted using a lawyer’s or law firm’s past results. Every case is unique and different and should be evaluated on its own merits, without comparison to other cases that may have had different facts and circumstances.