Faquir began working for the Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation in 1979, as a sewer maintenance laborer.

By 1992, he was a wastewater collection supervisor and seeking a promotion to wastewater collection manager. Failing to receive a promotion and concluding that the process had been discriminatory, Faquir and another supervisor brought suit against the city for race discrimination and retaliation. In 1994, while his action was pending, Faquir went on an extended leave of absence due to stress associated with workplace discrimination. Faquir’s lawsuit was successful. In 1997, judgment was entered in his favor in an amount exceeding $800,000. In 2001, Faquir attempted to return to work as a wastewater collection supervisor and again sought to promote to wastewater collection manager. His immediate supervisor, wastewater collection manager Barry Berggren, refused to allow him to return to work.

As a result, Faquir filed a second lawsuit. This suit was resolved prior to trial, and Faquir returned to work on September 23, 2001, as a wastewater collection manager. Faquir was a wastewater collection manager I, the lowest grade of the then-existing class. When the class consolidation went into effect in March 2003, Faquir became a sanitation wastewater manager (SWM) I, effective retroactive to September 2002. Subsequently, he applied for several SWM III positions, but was never successful.

He then applied for open SWM II positions. While at first not being selected, he persisted and eventually received an SWM II position.

If Faquir can prove that he was qualified for the SWM III rank, should he be entitled to sue for wrongful failure to promote him? If so, can he argue that his promotion to SWM II was in effect a retaliatory demotion, since he was qualified for one of the open SWM III positions? If he does file such a suit, should the company be permitted to lay him off, pending its resolution? See Faquir v. City of Los Angeles [2007 WL 2052146 (Cal. App. 2007)].