Disability Discrimination for Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in California

The FAC alleges that after Plaintiff underwent one hand surgery, Plaintiff was able to perform work with a reasonable accommodation. (FAC ¶ 11.) However, Defendant declined to engage in the interactive process and willfully refused to provide any reasonable accommodation, instead communicating that the Plaintiff could not return to work. (FAC ¶¶ 12, 13.)

The demurrer is OVERRULED. 2 nd 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).

As discussed above, Defendant has failed to establish as a matter of law that Plaintiff did not suffer from a physical disability under the FEHA. Defendant also argues that there is no evidence that Defendant failed to make a reasonable accommodation or failed to attempt to identify a reasonable accommodation.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION / REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION — DEMURRER FOR UNCERTAINTY Frontiers argues that Holmes’s SAC should be dismissed for uncertainty because it impermissibly combines a disability discrimination claim and a reasonable accommodation claim into one cause of action. (Demurrer at p. 1–2.) It is true that a reasonable accommodation claim is legally distinct from a disability discrimination claim.

Fourth Cause of Action for Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA To state a claim for failure to accommodate, a plaintiff must allege that (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 employees disability. ( Wilson v. County of Orange (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1192 .)

Harassment in Violation of FEHA 3. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment (FEHA) 4. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 5. Race Discrimination 6. Failure to Prevent Race-Based Discrimination 7. Retaliation 8. Medical Disability Discrimination 9. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA 10.

TENTATIVE RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER AS FOLLOWS: CAUSE OF ACTION NO. 2, HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY, FEHA: OVERRULED CAUSE OF ACTION NO. 4, DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FEHA: SUSTAINED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND CAUSE OF ACTION NO. 5, HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA: OVERRULED CAUSE OF ACTION NO. 7, DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX, FEHA: SUSTAINED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMAEND CAUSE OF ACTION NO. 10, FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

Here, however, Plaintiff’s new FEHA claims did arise out of the same facts that supported her original discrimination and retaliation claims—i.e., that she had a disability, that she requested reasonable accommodation, that rather than providing reasonable accommodation, she was discriminated and retaliated against. The court finds that of all of these cases, Goldman is the most factually analogous to this case such that the relation back doctrine applies.

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation Plaintiffs second cause of action is for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

process and/or the duty to provide her with a reasonable accommodation; that duty is imposed by FEHA.

On April 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (3) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Plaintiff's FAC pleads that he could perform the essential functions of his position with reasonable accommodation (See FAC Page 18, paragraph 79.) Defendant made no inquiry as to what if any reasonable accommodation was necessary and at worst it can be inferred that a temporary leave or time off to see a doctor was necessary to accommodate Plaintiff.

Rather, the issues involve violation of FEHA and breach of contract. Chapman presented no authority that doctrine of “judicial nonintervention into the academic affairs of schools” applies to an alleged violation of FEHA and breach of contract. The court has analyzed in four categories this motion is four categories. (I.) Disability Discrimination, (II.) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation, (III.) Breach of Contract and (IV.) Punitive Damages.

To establish the failure to engage in the interactive process claim, Plaintiff must prove that 1) the plaintiff had a disability under the FEHA, 2) the plaintiff requested the defendant to make a reasonable accommodation for the disability that would permit the plaintiff to perform the essential job requirements, 3) the defendant failed to participate in a good faith interactive process to determine whether reasonable accommodation could be made, and 4) the plaintiff was harmed as a result of the defendant’s

have the ability to perform the essential duties of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation.

“To prevail on a claim. . . for failure to engage in the interactive process, an employee must identify a reasonable accommodation that would have been available at the time the interactive process should have occurred.” (Scotch v. Art Institute of California-Orange County, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal. App. 4th 986, 1018.) As discussed above, Defendants show that there was no reasonable accommodation available to Plaintiff. As such, Plaintiff’s interactive process claim necessarily fails.

Second Cause of Action – for Failure to Make a Reasonable Accommodation (Government Code §12940(m)(l) FEHA requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for the known disabilities of applicants and 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 CCR § 11068(a); see Fisher v. Sup.Ct.

FEHA requires that an employer engage in the “interactive process” to identify a reasonable accommodation. “ ‘The “interactive process” required by the FEHA is an informal process with the employee ... to attempt to identify a reasonable accommodation that will enable the employee to perform the job effectively. ...’ [Citation.]” (Scotch v.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim for failure to provide reasonable accommodation have no merit because the undisputed evidence establishes that Defendant provided her reasonable accommodation during the course of her employment. Plaintiff’s second cause of action for failure to provide reasonable accommodation therefore fails.

The purpose of the interactive process is to determine what reasonable accommodation is required. The employee has the responsibility to initiate the process by requesting reasonable accommodation. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (n).)

Reasonable Accommodation. Plaintiff’s cause of action for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under Government Code section 12940, subdivision (m), part of the Fair Employment and Housing Act or the “FEHA,” requires that she plead (1) she had a disability covered by the FEHA, (2) she was able to perform the essential functions of his position, and (3) her employer failed to reasonably accommodate his disability. (Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 245, 256.)

FEHA); Seventh Cause of Action (Failure To Engage In A Timely Good Faith Interactive Process In Violation of FEHA); Eighth Cause of Action (Failure To Provide Reasonable Accommodation In Violation of FEHA), The Complaint repeats vague, generalized legal conclusions, with no factual specificity as to what happened.

Even ifPlaintiff did not qualify for FMLA or CFRA leave, an employer stillhas an obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation, which may include providing leave. (2 CCR §11068(c); see also Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1339-1341 (employee who exhausted PDDL leave was still entitled to leave under FEHA as a reasonable accommodation).) Defendant provides no justification that providing leave was an undue hardship for it.

(“Metrolab”), Teresa Izaguirre (“Izaguirre”), and Behrouz Tavakoli (“Tavakoli”) (collectively “Defendants”) demur to the 1st (disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA), 2nd (disability harassment in violation of the FEHA), 3rd (retaliation in violation of the FEHA), 4th (failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of the FEHA), 5th (failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA), 6th (failure to engage in good faith interactive process in violation

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the City failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation for his purported mental disability.

First Cause of Action (Discrimination in Violation of FEHA); Second Cause of Action (Failure to Prevent Discrimination—FEHA); Third Cause of Action (Failure to Engage in a Timely Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA); Fourth Cause of Action (Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation); Fifth Cause of Action (Retaliation in Violation of FEHA); Sixth Cause of Action (Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy); Seventh Cause of Action (Harassment in Violation of FEHA); Eighth Cause of Action

A finite leave can be a reasonable accommodation under FEHA, provided it is likely that at the end of the leave, the employee would be able to perform his or her duties. A reasonable accommodation does not, however, require the employer to wait indefinitely for an employee's medical condition to be corrected. See, e.g., Canupp v. Children’s Receiving Home of Sacramento, 181 F. Supp. 3d 767, 778 (E.D. Cal. 2016) It is undisputed that APP hired Plaintiff as a procurement specialist on October 26, 2015.

Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation: Pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), an employer must make a reasonable accommodation for a known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee. (Cal. Govt. Code §12940(m).)

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.

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. 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.” (Nealy v.

“The ADA requires that Nunes be able to perform the essential functions of her job ‘with or without reasonable accommodation.’ Unpaid medical leave may be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Even an extended medical leave, or an extension of an existing leave period, may be a reasonable accommodation if it does not pose an undue hardship on the employer.

The FEHA requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for the known disabilities of applicants and employees to enable them to perform a position's essential functions, unless doing so would produce undue hardship to the employer's operations. Government Code § 12940(m); A.M. v. Albertsons, LLC (2009) 178 CA4th 455, 463 (employer's failure to provide reasonable accommodation for employee's known physical disability constitutes unlawful employment practice); Jensen v.

Second Cause of Action: Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation under the FEHA It is unlawful under FEHA for employers to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an1⁄4 employee.” (Gov. Code § 12940, subd. (m).)

Second Cause of Action: Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation under the FEHA It is unlawful under FEHA for employers to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an1⁄4 employee.” (Gov. Code § 12940, subd. (m).)

Second Cause of Action The elements of a cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive process include (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff requested that his employer make reasonable accommodation for his disability so the plaintiff would be able to perform the essential job requirements, (3) the plaintiff was willing to participate in an interactive process to determine whether reasonable accommodation could be made, (4) the employer failed to participate in a timely

interactive process to help identify one, but the employee is able to identify a specific, available reasonable accommodation through the litigation process.’”

On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (3) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts.

The employer has discretion to chose an effective reasonable accommodation. (Id. [“[A]n employee cannot make his employer provide a specific accommodation if another reasonable accommodation is instead provided”].) Here, Casas was told that the County’s department policies would not allow the accommodation that Casas requested because he had not completed his probationary period. (UMF ¶¶ 81-87.)

The employer has discretion to chose an effective reasonable accommodation. (Id. [“[A]n employee cannot make his employer provide a specific accommodation if another reasonable accommodation is instead provided”].) Here, Casas was told that the County’s department policies would not allow the accommodation that Casas requested because he had not completed his probationary period. (UMF ¶¶ 81-87.)

Second Cause of Action: Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation-DENIED “In addition to setting forth a general prohibition against unlawful employment discrimination based on disability, FEHA provides an independent cause of action for an employer’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for an . . . employee’s known disability.” Moore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 216, 241.

While the Court does not agree with the City’s assertion that Plaintiff did not request a reasonable accommodation because there is no dispute that he requested a leave of absence to attend outpatient therapy (see Law Decl., ¶ 6 and Taitano Decl., ¶ 7) and “[a] term of leave from work can be a reasonable accommodation under FEHA, and, therefore, a request for leave can be considered a request for accommodation under FEHA” (Moore v.

“Under the express provisions of the FEHA, the employer's failure to reasonably accommodate a disabled individual is a violation of the statute in and of itself.” (Emphasis added.) (Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 245, 256.) “Any reasonable accommodation is sufficient to meet an employer's obligations. However, the employer need not adopt the most reasonable accommodation nor must the employer accept the remedy preferred by the employee. (Ansonia Board of Education v.

Reasonable Accommodation.

Reasonable Accommodation.

Reasonable Accommodation.

Reasonable Accommodation.

Reasonable Accommodation.

Reasonable Accommodation.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on 6/1/20, alleging: 1) pregnancy/sex discrimination and wrongful termination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the Pregnancy Disability Law (“PDL”); 2) failure to make reasonable accommodation under PDL; 3) retaliation under FEHA; 4) disability discrimination under FEHA; 5) failure to make reasonable accommodation under FEHA; 6) violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 1030-1034, 1197.1 et. seq.; 7) wrongful termination; 8) failure to prevent and/or remedy discrimination

Second and Third Causes of Action: Reasonable Accommodation/Interactive Process FEHA prohibits an employer from failing to make reasonable accommodations for the known physical and mental disabilities of an employee. (Gov. Code § 12940, subd. (m).)

Defendant has argued that remote work would not have been a reasonable accommodation. For the same reasons as those discussed above, there is a dispute as to whether remote work was a reasonable accommodation.

On August 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA disability/medical condition discrimination, (2) FEHA failure to engage in good faith interactive process, (3) FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (4) FEHA harassment, (5) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, (6) FEHA retaliation, (7) wrongful termination, and (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

[FAC, ¶21] The alleged representations in November 2013 appear to be the beginning of an informal, interactive process for reasonable accommodation. "If the employer has made clear in word and deed that the employee's attempted further reasonable accommodation is futile, then the employee is on notice that litigation, not informal conciliation, is the only alternative for the vindication of his or her rights.

(CACI 2450) The discrimination can be for not providing differential treatment in the form of a reasonable accommodation (CACI 2451-2453.) The discrimination can also be for not engaging an interactive process to try to identify a reasonable accommodation (CACI 2451-2453.)

According to the original Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he requested a religious exemption as a reasonable accommodation from the Defendants September 12, 2021, Ordinance mandating COVID-19 vaccination for all employees (Vaccination Ordinance). On September 12, 2021, an interactive dialogue was initiated for Plaintiffs request for reasonable accommodation. Plaintiffs request was submitted to Defendant.

However, an employer is not required under FEHA to convert an employee’s temporary, light-duty accommodation into a permanent position. (Raine v. City of Burbank (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1217.) Plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden. C. Reasonable Accommodation (4th cause of action) FEHA does not prohibit an employer from discharging an employee who is unable to perform his or her essential duties even with reasonable accommodation. (Gov.

The question here is whether Wells Fargo failed to reasonably accommodate her in accordance with subdivision (k); specifically, whether Wells Fargo failed to accommodate her by " reassignment to a vacant position," one of the methods of "reasonable accommodation" specified in the statutory definition , Government Code section 12926, subdivision (n)(2). n5 FOOTNOTES n5 Government Code section 12926, subdivision (n [1] ) provides: " 'Reasonable accommodation' may include either of the following

Further, as to causal relationship, the demand for an updated medical report from Plaintiff was clearly related to her disability claim and reasonable accommodation claims. Even assuming that Defendants carried their initial burden of establishing a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason for Plaintiff’s termination, Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence that this was pre-textual in relation to her pending workers’ compensation claim and her claim for reasonable accommodation.

The court finds for purposes of trial that Plaintiff has not established a disability, a perceived disability, or as being regarded as disabled under the law, or that she could perform the essential job functions of her position with or without reasonable accommodation; and 16. The court finds for purposes of trial that the City did not violate FEHA in its dealings with Plaintiff.

For the reasons discussed above, this would not be a reasonable accommodation. Where plaintiff has failed to provide a reasonable accommodation, he fails to meet the requirements of this cause of action. Therefore, summary adjudication is granted as to this cause of action.

Issue 2: Second Cause of Action Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation under the FEHA It is unlawful under FEHA for employers to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an1⁄4 employee.” (Gov. Code § 12940, subd. (m).)

Third Cause of Action – Failure to Provide a Reasonable Accommodation / Fourth Cause of Action – Failure to Engage in Good Faith 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).)

Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation (Third Cause of Action) (Issue 3) 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. Code § 12940(m); 2 CCR § 11068(a)).

Here, the FAC alleges that Defendants failed to attempt any reasonable accommodation of Reid’s disability. (FAC ¶ 70.) However, as a preliminary matter, as addressed above, the FAC has not alleged a FAC-qualifying disability. Additionally, the FAC has not alleged any of the other elements of the “reasonable accommodation” cause of action. The FAC does not allege what reasonable accommodation he thinks is necessary, and the Court is unable to ascertain what accommodation Reid may be seeking.

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. ( Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4 th 359, 373.)

An employer will not prevail on summary judgment for a failure to accommodate claim unless the employer establishes that (1) reasonable accommodation was offered and refused; (2) there was no vacant position that the employee was qualified and capable of performing with or without accommodation; or (3) the employer did everything in its power to find a reasonable accommodation but the interactive process broke down when the employee failed to engage in discussions in good faith. (Jensen v.

Second Cause of Action, Failure to Make Reasonable Accommodation (Government Code § 12940(m)). The demurrer is overruled. Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state this claim. (See Scotch v. Art Institute of Calif. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1009-1010 [elements].) Third Cause of Action, Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (Government Code § 12940(n)). The demurrer is sustained.

Second Cause of Action, Failure to Make Reasonable Accommodation (Government Code § 12940(m)). The demurrer is overruled. Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state this claim. (See Scotch v. Art Institute of Calif. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1009-1010 [elements].) Third Cause of Action, Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (Government Code § 12940(n)). The demurrer is sustained.

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. ( Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4 th 359, 373.)

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendant improperly relies on worker’s compensation law, which is different from FEHA. He argues that he was not required to be found permanent and stationary under worker’s compensation law in order to return to work under FEHA. He argues that Defendant had an affirmative duty to make a reasonable accommodation for his disability and no interactive process occurred.

FEHA; (7) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA; (8) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA; (9) retaliation in violation of Labor Code, section 1102.5; and (10) unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code, § 17200, et seq.

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. ( Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 359, 373.)

But Plaintiff presents facts to show that the March 2015 reasonable accommodation request was denied without a formal meeting or interactive process. This is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact. 7. Defamation Plaintiff sues Defendant for alleged “defamatory comments made by Defendants [that] were included in Plaintiff’s performance reviews.”

Santiago's first cause of action for failure to reasonably accommodate lacks merit because she has not identified any reasonable accommodation that would enable her to perform her job as a nurse. "The FEHA 'does not prohibit an employer from . . . discharging an employee with a physical or mental disability . . . where the employee, because of his or her physical or mental disability, is unable to perform his or her essential duties even with reasonable accommodations . . . .'" (Scotch v.

[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.

Issue No. 4 - Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation Under FEHA, it is unlawful for an employer to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an employee. (Govt. Code § 12940(m)(1).)

“[I]n order to establish that a defendant employer has discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the FEHA, the plaintiff employee bears the burden of proving he or she was able to do the job, with or without reasonable accommodation.” (Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254, 262.)

Second Cause of Action for Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation; Third Cause of Action for Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process FEHA requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's disability unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. (Gov. Code § 12940, subd. (m).)

Issue No. 5: “VALLEY VISTA cannot be held liable for Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action for Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation, because Plaintiff cannot prove that Valley Vista failed to provide reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff’s physical condition.”

RETALIATION — FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Lotus argues that Alemansour has not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for FEHA retaliation because asking for a reasonable accommodation is not “protected activity” under the FEHA statute. (Demurrer at p. 8.) But the authority relied upon by Lotus — Rope v.

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.

FEHA; (7) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (8) failure to engage in the interactive process; (9) retaliation for engaging in a protected activity in violation of FEHA; (10) retaliation for taking medical leave in violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (11) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (12) wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy; (13) breach of implied-in-fact contract not to terminate

Plaintiff filed the subject Complaint on March 16, 2018, alleging 8 causes of action for: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) failure to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA; (3) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA; (4) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (5) failure to prevent or remedy discrimination and/or retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (6) interference with rights under

It may seem inconsistent to rule that it was not a FEHA violation to terminate Plaintiff’s position as a Shuttle Department Team Member (Issue No. 6) on one hand, but, on the other hand, that there are triable issues as to whether it was a FEHA violation not to offer a reasonable accommodation or to engage in the interactive process (Issues Nos. 1 – 4).

Lucky Stores, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 215, 226 [“[A] finite leave can be a reasonable accommodation under FEHA, provided it is likely that at the end of the leave, the employee would be able to perform his or her duties.”].)

Plaintiff was allegedly “illegally fired” 6/17/20: Plaintiff filed a DFEH charge 2/25/21: Plaintiff filed the Complaint herein, asserting 7 C/As v. all defs: 1. disability discrimination [FEHA] 2. failure to engage in the interactive process [FEHA] 3. failure to provide reasonable accommodation [FEHA] 4. retaliation [FEHA] 5. failure to take all steps necessary to prevent discr/harassmt [FEHA] 6. wrongful termination in violation of public policy 7. failure to pay wages 4/19/21: Moving defendant filed

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (5th c/a). Defendant demurs on the basis that Plaintiff did not have a disability; that she has not alleged that Defendant was notified of her disability; and that allowing Plaintiff medical leave constitutes reasonable accommodation.

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (5th c/a). Defendant demurs on the basis that Plaintiff did not have a disability; that she has not alleged that Defendant was notified of her disability; and that allowing Plaintiff medical leave constitutes reasonable accommodation.

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (5th c/a). Defendant demurs on the basis that Plaintiff did not have a disability; that she has not alleged that Defendant was notified of her disability; and that allowing Plaintiff medical leave constitutes reasonable accommodation.

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (5th c/a). Defendant demurs on the basis that Plaintiff did not have a disability; that she has not alleged that Defendant was notified of her disability; and that allowing Plaintiff medical leave constitutes reasonable accommodation.

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (5th c/a). Defendant demurs on the basis that Plaintiff did not have a disability; that she has not alleged that Defendant was notified of her disability; and that allowing Plaintiff medical leave constitutes reasonable accommodation.

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (5th c/a). Defendant demurs on the basis that Plaintiff did not have a disability; that she has not alleged that Defendant was notified of her disability; and that allowing Plaintiff medical leave constitutes reasonable accommodation.

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (5th c/a). Defendant demurs on the basis that Plaintiff did not have a disability; that she has not alleged that Defendant was notified of her disability; and that allowing Plaintiff medical leave constitutes reasonable accommodation.

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (5th c/a). Defendant demurs on the basis that Plaintiff did not have a disability; that she has not alleged that Defendant was notified of her disability; and that allowing Plaintiff medical leave constitutes reasonable accommodation.

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (5th c/a). Defendant demurs on the basis that Plaintiff did not have a disability; that she has not alleged that Defendant was notified of her disability; and that allowing Plaintiff medical leave constitutes reasonable accommodation.

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (5th c/a). Defendant demurs on the basis that Plaintiff did not have a disability; that she has not alleged that Defendant was notified of her disability; and that allowing Plaintiff medical leave constitutes reasonable accommodation.

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (5th c/a). Defendant demurs on the basis that Plaintiff did not have a disability; that she has not alleged that Defendant was notified of her disability; and that allowing Plaintiff medical leave constitutes reasonable accommodation.

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (5th c/a). Defendant demurs on the basis that Plaintiff did not have a disability; that she has not alleged that Defendant was notified of her disability; and that allowing Plaintiff medical leave constitutes reasonable accommodation.