City’s attorney says no grounds for lawsuit


The attorney representing Peachtree City in a federal lawsuit recently filed by former police officer Shane Ficalore maintains that the city did not violate Ficalore’s rights and that any actions he suffered were a result of his own actions.

Representing the city, Atlanta attorney Doug Duerr said, in whole or in part, Ficalore fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Duerr in the response said the city did not willfully or intentionally violate Ficalore’s rights, adding that any damages Ficalore suffered were the direct result of his own actions or inactions.

Duerr said Ficalore failed to commence the lawsuit within the applicable time frame. Duerr said Ficalore’s Title VII and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are barred to the extent “any action on his claims are based occurred more than 180 days prior to the filing of his administrative charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and/or were not the subject of or were otherwise outside the scope of the administrative charges.”

The Ficalore lawsuit identifies four counts for which he seeks relief. Those include discrimination in violation of ADAAA (Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act), retaliation in violation of ADAAA, retaliation for his exercise of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA and) and retaliation in violation of Title VII that prevents discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin.

The Ficalore suit claims that, as a result of his wife’s previous claims against the city, and by way of his own claims of disability and efforts to obtain accommodation for his disability, he suffered discrimination and retaliation by former Police Chief H.C. “Skip” Clark, city officials and the City Council.

Duerr maintains that the city has not violated any applicable laws, rules and regulations.

“Any action taken by Defendant affecting Plaintiff and/or the terms or conditions of his employment was for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and, as such, did not violate any legal right possessed by Plaintiff. Additionally and/or alternatively, even if Plaintiff was able to demonstrate that discrimination played a motivating part in any such action, the same action would have been taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons,” Duerr said.