What is failure to provide reasonable accommodations?

Useful Resources for Disability Discrimination – Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations

Recent Rulings on Disability Discrimination – Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations

126-150 of 712 results

KARIE NAKADATE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

A request for reasonable accommodation is “protected activity” under FEHA. (FEHA §11068(k).) Moreover, Plaintiff has submitted evidence in which Defendant Mayeda emailed a colleague for advice on “how to tell [Plaintiff] that she is terminated because she will not be returning this school year due to illness.” (Wilcox Decl., Exh. 13.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GEORGE CASTRO VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT

accommodation. (5AC ¶ 59

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SHWON SASANI VS SO CAL PLUMBING HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, LLC., ET AL.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 14th cause of action for failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA It is an unlawful employment practice, “[f]or an employer . . . to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee.” Gov. Code §12490(m).

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LAUREN WALTERS VS CHARLES D. SMITH, ET AL.

for complaining of discrimination and/or harassment on the basis of disability and/or medical condition in violation of FEHA; (7) discrimination for taking CFRA leave in violation of FEHA; (8) retaliation for taking CFRA leave in violation of FEHA; (9) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (10) failure to engage in the interactive process; and (11) violation of California Labor Code, Section 1102.5.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

HAGOP TCHAKERIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

(n) [failure to provide reasonable accommodation claim exists where an employer fails “to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition”].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ZARAGOZA-SALCIDO VS. CC SHERIFF

The allegations are sufficient to state a claim for retaliation related to her request for reasonable accommodation of her disability for purposes of a demurrer. Here again, there is an element of plaintiff applying different labels to more or less the same alleged unlawful conduct. Here, however, there may be more substance to the distinction, depending on what the facts shown at trial might turn out to be.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

KATY M SETOODEH VS SAINT JOHNS MULTISPECIALTY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., DBA DOCTORS OF ST JOHNS MEDICAL GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged five causes of action against each of the Defendants: (1) discrimination based on disability in violation of the Fair Housing Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) failure to accommodate disability in violation of the FEHA, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA, (4) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (5) retaliation in violation of the FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MELISSA MARTINEZ VS L A HARDWOOD FLOORING INC ET AL

“To prevail on a claim under section 12940, subdivision (n) for failure to engage in the interactive process, an employee must identify a reasonable accommodation that would have been available at the time of the interactive process should have occurred.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RACHEL PHIPPS VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The FAC asserts causes of action for: Disability Discrimination; Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation; Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps Necessary to Prevent Discrimination; Retaliation under FEHA; and Wrongful Termination. Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for disability discrimination, the third cause of action for failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, and the fifth cause of action for wrongful termination.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROBERT BROWN VS ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.

(FAC ¶¶18-19; See Richards at 823 [“‘[P]ermanence’ in the context of an ongoing process of accommodation of disability, or ongoing disability harassment, should properly be understood to mean the following: that 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.”].) As such, the continuing violations doctrine does not apply, based on Plaintiff’s allegations.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MELISSA MARTINEZ VS L A HARDWOOD FLOORING INC ET AL

“California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits an employer from terminating an employee because of her sex.” (Trop v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1144.) “Sex within the meaning of the FEHA includes pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ERIKA JACQUEZ VS WALMART, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint, alleging 10 causes of action: (1) discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) harassment on the basis of disability in violation of the FEHA, (3) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA, (4) failure to engage in the interactive process, (5) retaliation for engaging in a protected activity in violation of the FEHA, (6) violation of Labor Code § 1102.5, (7) violation of Labor Code

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

VINCENT BERRY VS EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.

Moreover, FEHA requires employers to engage in a good faith interactive process to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, “in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee . . . with a known physical or mental disability . . . .” (Gov’t Code § 12940, subd. (n); Raine v. City of Burbank (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1222.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DANIEL SANCHEZ VS R & B SANCHEZ DBA MCDONALD'S STORE NO. 10920, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY

Because Plaintiff has not and cannot identify a reasonable accommodation that RB refused him, Plaintiff’s third cause of action must fail. Accordingly, summary adjudication is granted as to the third issue. E.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PATRICK FINN VS. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOLD DISTRICT, ET AL

In order to establish a claim that an employer failed to engage in the interactive process, a plaintiff must show that (1) the plaintiff requested the employer make a reasonable accommodation; (2) the plaintiff was willing to participate in an interactive process to determine whether a reasonable accommodation could be made; and (3) the employer failed to participate in a timely and good-faith interactive process with the plaintiff to determine whether a reasonable accommodation could be made. (Govt.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LYNETTE SALAZAR VS CITY OF GLENDALE ET AL

Third Cause of Action – Failure to Provide a Reasonable Accommodation FEHA prohibits an employer from failing to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical and mental disability of an employee. (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(m).) The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff's disability. (Lui v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DONATO SERRANO VS CROWN ENERGY SERVICE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Process in Violation of FEHA, (3) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA, (4) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, and (5) Wrongful Termination/Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LEYLA ARENAS VS SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

In her Complaint, Arenas asserts causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) failure to prevent discrimination, (3) failure to engage in a timely good faith interactive process, (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (6) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, (7) harassment in violation of FEHA, and (8) failure to prevent harassment in violation of FEHA. SMC now demurs to each of the causes of action in the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DANIEL MENCHACA VS REULAND ELECTRIC CO.

“Two principles underlie a cause of action for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. First, the employee must request an accommodation. [Citation.] Second, the parties must engage in an interactive process regarding the requested accommodation and, if the process fails, responsibility for the failure rests with the party who failed to participate in good faith. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JASON ROJAS VS COUNTRYWOOD PARK HOMES

Third Cause of Action – Failure to Provide a Reasonable Accommodation FEHA prohibits an employer from failing to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical and mental disability of an employee. (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(m).) The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff's disability. (Lui v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

LYNETTE SALAZAR VS CITY OF GLENDALE ET AL

Third Cause of Action – Failure to Provide a Reasonable Accommodation FEHA prohibits an employer from failing to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical and mental disability of an employee. (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(m).) The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff's disability. (Lui v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ROBIN REID VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION – FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS; TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS FEHA prohibits an employer from failing to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical and mental disability of an employee. (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(m).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CANDICE OREJEL VS EARLY STRIDES CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER LLC

Early Strides moves for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) the entire complaint is time-barred because it was filed more than a year after the Department of Fair Employment and Housing closed Orejel’s case; (2) Orejel cannot prevail on claims for disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent, and CFRA retaliation because she voluntarily resigned; and (3) Orejel cannot prevail on her claims for denial of reasonable accommodation, good faith interactive process, or CFRA violations, because

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JANE DOE, ET AL. VS EMPLOYERS HR, LLC, ET AL.

, (12) Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy, (13) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA, and (14) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 29     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.