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

151-175 of 712 results

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

ROSEMARIE BERNAL VS KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS

process under FEHA: (1) res judicata bars claim, (2) the plaintiff does not suffer a qualifying disability, (3) the plaintiff was not denied reasonable accommodation; · C/A 4 for failure to provide reasonable accommodation under FEHA: (1) res judicata bars claim, (2) the plaintiff does not suffer a qualifying disability, (3) the plaintiff was not denied reasonable accommodation; · C/A 5 for failure to prevent discrimination and harassment under FEHA: (1) res judicata bars claim, (2) the plaintiff does not

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

WOLSIEFFER VS CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF DENISE WOLSIEFFER BY CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE

For the same reasons, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the 4th cause of action for failure to provide reasonable accommodation. The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the 5th cause of action for age discrimination, which fails to state a prima facie case for age discrimination.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

LIANNA REBOLLEDO VS HOMBRE NUEVO

In this cause of action, much like the First Cause of Action, the Complaint alleges that Rebolledo’s protected activity was requesting a reasonable accommodation for a medical condition and that her request for medical leave and her medical conditional were a substantial motivating reason for NH’s discharge of her. (Compl. ¶¶ 28-29.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ABRAHAM LOPEZ VS AVITUS, INC., ET AL.

In order to establish a prima facie case of FEHA disability discrimination, the employee-plaintiff must prove: (1) he suffered from a disability; (2) with or without reasonable accommodation, she could perform the essential functions of the employment position he held or desired; and (3) that he was subjected to an adverse employment action because of his disability. Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 245, 254. The Court finds that Lopez has sufficiently alleged the claim.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ASHLEY MADDOCK VS EMPLOYMENT TAX SERVICING CORPORATION ET AL

Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot establish that she engaged in a protected activity because merely requesting reasonable accommodation is not a protective activity. (Motion at p. 9.) Defendants rely on an outdated case for this argument – Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 359. After that case, the legislature amended FEHA specifically to make requesting accommodation a protected activity. (Govt. Code, § 12940, subd. (m)(2); Ruiz v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Laura A. Seigle or Elizabeth Allen White

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action—Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation and Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process Under FEHA FEHA makes it an unlawful employment practice “[f]or an employer or other entity covered by this part to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an ... employee.” (Jensen, at 256.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ELENA BARRIOS VS WEST HILLS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.

(“FEHA”); (3-4) failure to provide reasonable accommodation and to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (7) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (8) unsafe workplace in violation of Labor Code section 6310; (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (10-12) unpaid overtime, meal and rest period premiums

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RACHEL MOORE VS EMPTECH ET AL

It was Plaintiff and Maddock’s position that her modified schedule was a reasonable accommodation and did not negatively impact the company or Maddock’s performance. In response, Aleixo instituted a new policy which did not allow for Maddock to work from home or work outside normal business hours despite Maddock’s medical needs. During the week of October 30, 2017, Maddock requested that to come in late and leave early one day due to her medical condition. On November 2, 2017, Defendant demoted Maddock.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SHOHREH SAMIMI VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CA ET AL

.; Whistle-Blower Retaliation in Violation of Health and Safety Code § 1278.4; Violation of FEHA; Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; Violations of Business and Professions Code § 510; and Violation of Labor Code § 232.5. Trial is currently set for October 5, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CRYSTAL PEREZ VS KAISER PERMANENTE ET AL

did everything in its power to find a reasonable accommodation, but the informal interactive process broke down because the employee failed to engage in discussions in good faith.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

However, a request for reasonable accommodation is not “protected activity” under the retaliation provision of FEHA. (Nealy v. Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 258, 381.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

VEGA VS. YAPSTONE

Plaintiff alleges Yapstone failed to engage, in good faith, in the interactive process to reach a reasonable accommodation, as required under the FEHA, Gov. Code, § 12940(n).) The “interactive process” is an informal process where the employee and employer “attempt to identify a reasonable accommodation that will enable the employee to perform the job effectively.” (Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1169.)

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2020

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

of Public Policy, (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

    May 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GURDIP KAUR V. FOSTER POULTRY FARMS

Cause of Action Two – failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of the FEHA FEHA requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for the known disability of an employee unless doing so would produce undue hardship to the employer's operation. (Gov’t. Code, § 12940, subd. (m).) A reasonable accommodation is a modification adjustment to the work environment that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job she holds or desires. (Nadaf- Rahrov v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2020

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

    Mar 18, 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

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JAQUELINE NEWBY VS CHRISTOPHER OLMSTED, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

procedural history Newby filed the Complaint on July 9, 2019, and then the FAC on August 21, 2019, alleging eight causes of action: FEHA Discrimination FEHA Retaliation FEHA Failure to take all steps necessary to stop discrimination, harassment, and retaliation FEHA Failure to provide reasonable accommodation FEHA Failure to engage in a timely good-faith interactive process Wrongful termination in violation of public policy Failure to provide rest and meal breaks, Cal. Lab.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JORGE MONTENEGRO VS CITY OF L A DEPT OF L A WORLD AIRPORTS

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint, filed, December 22, 2017, alleges four causes of action for: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Employment Act (“FEHA”), (2) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA, (3) failure to provide reasonable accommodation for known physical disability in violation of the FEHA, and (4) retaliation for requesting reasonable accommodation for disability.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GLORIA GUZMAN VS HOOMAN ENTERPRISES INC

On August 16, 2019, the jury returned verdicts for Plaintiff and against Defendant on Plaintiff’s causes of action for wrongful termination and FEHA retaliation. On August 16, 2019, the jury also returned verdicts for Defendant and against Plaintiff Plaintiff’s claims for disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in the interactive process, age discrimination and punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING VS SANTA CLARITA

The Court also previously addressed this argument in its November 2018 ruling that the District’s argument was a misstatement of the law as it applies to reasonable accommodation claimants: [W]hen an employer engages in a continuing course of unlawful conduct under the FEHA by refusing reasonable accommodation of a disabled employee or engaging in disability harassment, and this course of conduct does not constitute a constructive discharge, the statute of limitations begins to run not necessarily when the

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

DENNIS V. SOLANO COALITION FOR BETTER HEALTH

This does not permit a reasonable inference that Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment was made to avoid making reasonable accommodation for disabilities.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

LOPEZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

FEHA requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for the known disability of an employee unless doing so would produce undue hardship to the employer's operation. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (m).) The elements of a reasonable accommodation cause of action are (1) the employee suffered a disability, (2) the employee could perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation, and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the employee's disability. (Wilson v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LOPEZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

FEHA requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for the known disability of an employee unless doing so would produce undue hardship to the employer's operation. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (m).) The elements of a reasonable accommodation cause of action are (1) the employee suffered a disability, (2) the employee could perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation, and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the employee's disability. (Wilson v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  « 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.