--- title: "LA County Settles Disability Discrimination Case $175K" meta: "og:description": "Valerie Busch sued the County of Los Angeles for disability discrimination. The employment lawsuit ended in a confidential settlement for $175,000." "og:title": "LA County Settles Disability Discrimination Case $175K" description: "Valerie Busch sued the County of Los Angeles for disability discrimination. The employment lawsuit ended in a confidential settlement for $175,000." --- October 17, 2025 # **LA County Settles Disability Discrimination Case $175K** Valerie Busch sued the County of Los Angeles for disability discrimination. The employment lawsuit ended in a confidential settlement for $175,000. [**Employment Discrimination**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/la-county-settles-disability-discrimination-case-175k/jury-verdict/category/employment-discrimination-labor-and-employment-law) [**Disability Discrimination**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/la-county-settles-disability-discrimination-case-175k/jury-verdict/category/disability-discrimination) ### **Outline** Author ![](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/profile_images/shared_image_1.webp) **Sohini Chakraborty****Sohini Chakraborty is a lawyer, with over two years of experience in legal research and analysis. She specializes in working closely with expert witnesses, offering critical support in preparing legal research and detailed case studies.** ![Article Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp) The lawsuit, Valerie Busch v. County of Los Angeles (Case No. 21STCV27869), began in July 2021 when former County employee Valerie Busch asserted that the County had violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Plaintiff, who had a physical disability, claimed the County failed to engage in the legally mandated good-faith interactive process and refused to provide reasonable accommodations, leading to her eventual termination. Ms. Busch sought substantial damages for lost wages and significant emotional distress. The County denied liability, arguing its HR processes were compliant and that the Plaintiff’s requests for accommodation were unreasonable. Just prior to trial, after intense mediation, the parties reached a final, binding settlement. The County of Los Angeles agreed to pay Valerie Busch $175,000 to resolve all claims, formally closing the litigation. ## **Case Background** Valerie Busch, an individual Plaintiff, commenced legal action against the County of Los Angeles in July 2021. The Plaintiff had served as an employee of the County and brought the lawsuit forward after she asserted that her employer had subjected her to discriminatory practices. The core of her complaint maintained that the County had failed to meet its legal obligations concerning her medical condition, leading to her eventual termination. The high-stakes employment case progressed through the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District, initially assigned to the Honorable Holly J. Fujie. ### **Cause** The Plaintiff filed her original complaint on July 28, 2021, on the basis of alleged violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The lawsuit established that Ms. Busch had suffered from a qualifying physical disability that required the County to offer reasonable workplace modifications, or accommodations, to allow her to continue her work effectively. Her filing made clear that the County possessed an enforceable duty to engage in a good-faith interactive process to determine suitable accommodations. Ms. Busch claimed the County repeatedly refused to provide the necessary support, thereby breaching its duty. This inaction, the Plaintiff asserted, constituted both a failure to accommodate and unlawful disability discrimination. ### **Injury** Throughout the litigation, the Plaintiff consistently maintained that she endured significant physical and emotional distress because of the County’s conduct. The complaint detailed that the stress and the resultant loss of employment severely impacted her health and necessitated ongoing medical and psychological treatment. The Plaintiff’s legal team argued that the County’s actions inflicted not only physical symptoms but also profound emotional suffering and trauma, injuries that ultimately formed the basis for the substantial damages she sought. ### **Damages Sought** Valerie Busch sought recovery for both economic and non-economic damages. She pursued compensation for economic losses, including all past and future lost earnings and employment benefits she forfeited following her separation from the County. Her claim also covered the extensive costs associated with her ongoing medical and therapeutic treatments. Furthermore, the Plaintiff pursued substantial non-economic damages, requesting relief for the considerable pain, emotional suffering, and mental anguish she had experienced due to the alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate. She also specifically requested recovery of her attorneys’ fees, as provided for under California law for successful FEHA claims. ## **Key Arguments and Proceedings** ### **Legal Representation** **Plaintiff:** Valerie Busch. - **Counsel for Plaintiff(s):** Joseph M. Lovretovich | Nicholas W. Sarris | Brooke C. Bellah | Deluya Talya Tamar **Defendant(s):** County of Los Angeles, a governmental entity | DOES 1 through 25, inclusive. - **Counsel for Defendant(s):** Michele M. Goldsmith | Stephanie S. Ho ## **Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel** The Plaintiff’s legal team launched a case centered on the County's obligation to protect disabled workers. They argued that Ms. Busch had proactively notified her supervisors of her medical condition and requested necessary, reasonable adjustments to her job duties, but the County had repeatedly stalled or rejected these requests. Plaintiff’s counsel forcefully argued that the County’s Human Resources department had failed to engage in the legally mandated “interactive process” in good faith, which essentially amounted to an outright refusal to accommodate. This refusal, they asserted, demonstrated discriminatory intent and directly caused Ms. Busch’s job loss and subsequent distress. The defense, representing the County of Los Angeles, vehemently countered the allegations with a general denial of liability. The defense maintained that the County had engaged with Ms. Busch concerning her condition and had offered reasonable alternatives, which the Plaintiff had declined or found unsatisfactory. They stated that the County was not legally obligated to create a new position or to fundamentally change the essential functions of her existing job. Furthermore, the County’s counsel argued that Ms. Busch had failed to exhaust all of her administrative remedies before she filed the lawsuit, a technical defense they asserted warranted dismissal of the entire case. ### **Claims** **Disability Discrimination** The central claim against the County asserted that it had acted unlawfully by terminating the Plaintiff's employment based on her physical disability. Ms. Busch maintained that she performed the essential functions of her job, but the County discriminated against her by treating her differently from non-disabled employees. **Failure to Accommodate** The Plaintiff asserted that the County had failed its legal duty to make reasonable accommodations for her known physical disability. This claim rested on the argument that simple, minor adjustments would have allowed her to continue her employment, but the County refused to implement them, directly violating the requirements of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. **Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process** This separate, but related, claim asserted that the County did not engage in the required good-faith, collaborative discussion with the Plaintiff to determine an effective, reasonable accommodation. The Plaintiff argued that the County’s failure to participate honestly in this process alone constituted an actionable violation of her rights. ### **Defense** The County of Los Angeles officially responded to the complaint by filing a sweeping denial of the allegations. The defense strategy focused heavily on procedural defects and the substantive merits of the accommodation requests. They contended that their internal compliance and human resources systems were standard and fair. The County maintained that they had fulfilled their interactive duties and that Ms. Busch’s requests for accommodation were unreasonable, or that no accommodation existed that would have allowed her to perform the necessary functions of her role. They firmly denied that any discriminatory intent had motivated their employment decisions regarding the Plaintiff. ### **Settlement** The high-stakes employment discrimination case, which had drawn considerable attention, settled just prior to the final trial phase. Following several confidential mediation sessions, the parties reached a final and binding agreement. The County of Los Angeles ultimately agreed to pay the Plaintiff, Valerie Busch, the sum of **$175,000** to resolve all claims lodged in the lawsuit. This substantial settlement concluded the litigation, preventing the need for a protracted, public jury trial that would have involved detailed testimony about the County’s employment practices. While the settlement did not constitute an admission of fault or liability by the County of Los Angeles, the resolution formalized an agreement that both sides had accepted, ending a powerful legal challenge that asserted institutional failure to protect the rights of a disabled employee. Court documents are available upon request at [jurimatic@exlitem.com](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/la-county-settles-disability-discrimination-case-175k/mailto:jurimatic@exlitem.com) [Share with Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/la-county-settles-disability-discrimination-case-175k) [Share with X](https://x.com/intent/post?url=https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/la-county-settles-disability-discrimination-case-175k&text=x) [Share with LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/la-county-settles-disability-discrimination-case-175k) [Share with Email](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/la-county-settles-disability-discrimination-case-175k/mailto:?body=https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/la-county-settles-disability-discrimination-case-175k&subject=email) [Share with WhatsApp](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/la-county-settles-disability-discrimination-case-175k%20whatsapp) ### **Find your next Expert Witness today** ![Sanjay Adhia](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/la-county-settles-disability-discrimination-case-175k/_ipx/q_80/user-default.svg) ###### **Sanjay Adhia** Forensic Psychiastry ![George Reis](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/la-county-settles-disability-discrimination-case-175k/_ipx/q_80/user-default.svg) ###### **George Reis** Forensic Imaging ![Maria Babinetz](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/la-county-settles-disability-discrimination-case-175k/_ipx/q_80/user-default.svg) ###### **Maria Babinetz** Vocational Rehabilitation Find and retain experts without brokerage or upcharge. ### Looking for more? Join our subscriber community and receive regular updates delivered straight to your inbox. It’s quick, easy, and free.