What is failure to provide reasonable accommodations?

Useful Rulings on Disability Discrimination – Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations

Recent Rulings on Disability Discrimination – Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations

KIARA JONES VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff Kiara Jones (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) alleging seven causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”): (1) discrimination; (2) failure to prevent discrimination; (3) failure to engage in a timely good faith interactive process; (4) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation; (5) retaliation; (6) harassment; and (7) failure to prevent harassment.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LEE ROSSUM VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT

Here, Plaintiff seeks production of documents pertaining to the following: (1) RFP 42-70, complaints of corrective action taken, any other steps taken and efforts made regarding any discrimination and retaliation committed by Defendant against Plaintiff, as well as documents related to Plaintiff’s request for reasonable accommodation and Defendant’s deliberation of and response to Plaintiff’s requested accommodations; (2) RFP 38-41, 46, 57, documents related to Defendant’s policies and procedures, and workplace

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARY CRUZ CRESPO VS NORA FLORES, ET AL.

For Special Interrogatory Number 39, Plaintiff maintains that because she requested a reasonable accommodation, “any evidence of prior employees being terminated while also needing reasonable accommodation, may reveal a pattern of disability discrimination.” (Id. at p. 10:15-16.) In opposition, Defendant argues that “Special Interrogatories Nos. 37, 38, and 39 seek information that has nothing to do with the issues in this case, and are overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive.” (SROG Opp., p. 3:13-14.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARC BUENTIEMPO V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

The FEHA requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for an employee’s known disabilities to enable the employee to perform a position’s essential functions, unless doing so would produce undue hardship to the employer’s operations. (Gov. Code, § 12940(m).) Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiff never sought an accommodation or advised anyone at CMC that he needed an accommodation.

  • Hearing

AVERY SCHWARTZ VS DIGNITY HEALTH

Defendant demurs to the second cause of action on the grounds that it provided Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation in granting him medical leave and by engaging in the interactive process through July 20, 2018. Dem. 21. Defendant cites Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, 234 Cal. App. 4th 359, 377-78 (2015), to argue that the FEHA does not require an employer to provide an indefinite leave of absence to an employee. Dem. 21.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EULICES JIMENEZ VS BIO-NUTRACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.

Instead, Defendant maintains that “the complaint is boilerplate, and identifies nearly every theory of liability under FEHA (e.g., harassment, discrimination, retaliation, denial of reasonable accommodation, asked impermissible non-job-related questions, denied family care or medical leave, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied work opportunities or assignments, etc.), and encompasses multiple protected classes, even those not applicable in this case (e.g., association with a member of a protected

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EULICES JIMENEZ VS BIO-NUTRACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.

Instead, Defendant maintains that “the complaint is boilerplate, and identifies nearly every theory of liability under FEHA (e.g., harassment, discrimination, retaliation, denial of reasonable accommodation, asked impermissible non-job-related questions, denied family care or medical leave, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied work opportunities or assignments, etc.), and encompasses multiple protected classes, even those not applicable in this case (e.g., association with a member of a protected

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

AJA STEEN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS IHS GLOBAL INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and retaliation, (5) retaliation under FEHA, (6) wrongful termination, (7) failure to provide personnel files, and (8) failure to provide payroll files. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GRADY THOMAS VS LEIDOS, INC., ET AL.

FEHA provides an independent cause of action for an employer's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for an applicant's or employee's known disability, if requested. (Gov. Code, § 12940(n).) As previously discussed, Plaintiff alleges that Leidos/QTC engaged in the interactive process and agreed to provide him an accommodation he requested. (FAC, ¶ 14s.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LUCIO GONZALEZ BAHENA VS PRIORITYWORKFORCE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Because he could perform his essential job duties with reasonable accommodation, Plaintiff contacted the Defendants several times about returning to work. Defendants failed to respond to his calls. Because Defendants did not want a disabled employee, Defendants refused to discuss reasonable accommodations with Plaintiff and refused to allow him to return to work. Plaintiff was therefore constructively terminated.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JANE DOE VS SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) sexual assault and battery, (2) discrimination in violation of the UCRA and FEHA, (3) harassment in violation of FEHA and Civil Code section 51.9, (4) violation of the Ralph Act, (5) interference with the exercise of civil rights in violation of the Bane Act, (6) gender violence in violation of Civil Code section 52.4, (7) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (8) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (9) failure to engage in the interactive

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FRED DAILEY VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM

§ 12945.2) C/A 5: for Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq) C/A 6: for Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process (Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq) CA/7: for Declaratory Relief LAUSD hired Plaintiff in November 2014 as a building and grounds worker to clean classrooms, restrooms, and perform facility repairs.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CHARLES SMITH VS SMART72, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (3) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA, (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (7) waiting time penalties, and (8) failure to produce personnel and payroll records.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GARY GIBBS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

As to failure to engage in the interactive process, Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing what reasonable accommodation should have been available, but wasn’t. As to retaliation, Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that he opposed any practice forbidden by the FEHA, or specific facts to show how he was subjected to any particular adverse employment action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Richard L. Fruin

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HOUDA ASSALY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The FAC alleges the following causes of action: (1) discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the FEHA, (3) hostile work environment harassment on the basis of age in violation of the FEHA, (4) hostile work environment harassment on the basis of disability in violation of the FEHA, (5) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (6) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA, (

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EDDIE WASHINGTON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ET AL.

“Permanence” is “understood to mean ‘than an employer’s statements and actions make clear to a reasonable employee that any further efforts at informal conciliation to obtain reasonable accommodation or end harassment will be futile.’ ” (Id. at 1059 fn. 5 (discussing disability discrimination).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARGARITA Z. RAMIREZ VS WORLD OIL CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (2) intrusion into private affairs, (3) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (4) violation of CFRA rights, (5) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA, and (7) wrongful constructive discharge.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WAHAB VS. YRC INC.

To prove his claim of failure to accommodate, Plaintiff must prove: (1) he was employed by Defendant; (2) he had a disability; (3) Defendant knew of the disability; (4) Plaintiff could perform the essential duties of his position with a reasonable accommodation; (5) Defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodation; and (6) resulting harm. CACI 2541. The purpose of the interactive process is to determine what reasonable accommodation is required.

  • Hearing

MARTIN V. STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Under Government Code section 12940, subdivision (m)(1), it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer or other entity covered by this part to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CUA VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer "to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an ... employee." Gov. Code 12940(m). Two principles underlie a cause of action for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 34, 54. First, the employee must request an accommodation. Id.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FELIPE MARCIAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

accommodation” and “There was no effort to engage in an interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FELIPE MARCIAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

accommodation” and “There was no effort to engage in an interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MORENO VS FLEETWOOD HOMES INC

FEHA requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for the known disabilities of employees to enable them to perform a position’s essential functions, unless doing so would produce undue hardship to the employer’s operations. (Gov. C. § 12940(m); 2 Cal.C.Regs. § 11068(a).) Employers who are aware of an employee’s disability have an affirmative duty to make reasonable accommodations for such disability.

  • Hearing

DARLA WALTERS VS LEE AIR COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) hostile work environment harassment in violation of FEHA, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) breach of express oral contract not to terminate employment without good cause, (8) breach of implied-in-fact

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JANE DOE VS SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) sexual assault and battery, (2) discrimination in violation of the UCRA and FEHA, (3) harassment in violation of FEHA and Civil Code section 51.9, (4) violation of the Ralph Act, (5) interference with the exercise of civil rights in violation of the Bane Act, (6) gender violence in violation of Civil Code section 52.4, (7) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (8) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (9) failure to engage in the interactive

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 28     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.