Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits discrimination by an employer against an employee with a physical or mental disability” (Gov. Code § 12940(a)(1); Green v. State of California (“Green”) (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254, 262.) FEHA further provides that 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” unless the accommodation would cause “undue hardship” to the employer. (Gov. Code, § 12940(m); Sargent v. Litton Systems, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1994) 841 F.Supp. 956, 960.)
A reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment to the work environment that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job he or she holds or desires. (Nadaf–Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 952, 974, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 (Nadaf–Rahrov ).) “The reasonableness of an accommodation generally is a question of fact.” (Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 374.)
“Reasonable accommodations may include, among other things, job restructuring or permitting an alteration of when and/or how an essential function is performed”; “elimination of an essential function is not a reasonable accommodation.” (Id. at 374–75.)
The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are the following:
(Scotch v. Art Institute of California-Orange County, Inc. (2009), 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1009–1010; Nosal–Tabor v. Sharp Chula Vista Med. Ctr, (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1234–35.)
“[W]hen determining whether a job requirement is an ‘essential function,’ ‘consideration shall be given to the employer's judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, and if an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job.’ However, such evidence is not conclusive; ‘an employer may not turn every condition of employment which it elects to adopt into a job function, let alone an essential job function, merely by including it in a job description.’” (Cripe v. City of San Jose (“Cripe”) (9th Cir. 2001) 261 F.3d 877, 887.)
An employer's failure to reasonably accommodate a disabled individual is a violation of the statute in and of itself. (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54-55.) Similarly, an employer's failure to engage in a good faith interactive process to determine an effective accommodation, once one is requested, is also a violation of the statute. (Id.)
The employee bears the burden of giving the employer notice of the disability, which then triggers the employer’s burden to take positive steps to accommodate the employee’s limitations. (Raine v. City of Burbank (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1222.) The employee retains a duty to cooperate with the employer’s efforts by explaining her disability and qualifications. (Id.) Thus, reasonable accommodation thus envisions an exchange between employer and employee where each seeks and shares information to achieve the best match between the employer’s capabilities and available positions. (Id.) FEHA does not obligate an employer to choose the best accommodation or the specific accommodation a disabled employee or applicant seeks. (Id.) Employers must proactively engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee to determine effective reasonable accommodations. (Wilson v. County of Orange (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1193.)
The interactive process of fashioning an appropriate accommodation lies primarily with the employee. (King v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 426, 443.) The employee must provide notice that an accommodation is sought for an identified disability and an employer is not ordinarily liable for failing to accommodate a disability of which it had no knowledge. (Id.) “An employee cannot demand clairvoyance of his employer. First, the employee has a duty to inform the employer that he has a disability. An employer is not ordinarily liable for failing to accommodate a disability of which it had no knowledge.” (Arteaga v. Brink's, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 327, 349.)
“The interactive process required by the FEHA is an informal process with the employee or the employee’s representative, to attempt to identify reasonable accommodation which will enable the employee to perform the job effectively. Ritualized discussions are not necessarily required.” (Wilson v. City of Orange (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1195.) An employer’s failure to engage in this process is a separate FEHA violation from a failure to accommodate and involves different proof of facts. (Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 413, 424-425.) Still, while a claim of failure to accommodate is independent of a cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive dialogue, each necessarily implicates the other. (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54-55.)
When a claim is brought for failure to reasonably accommodate the claimant's disability, the trial court's ultimate obligation is to “isolate the cause of the breakdown... and then assign responsibility” so that “[l]iability for failure to provide reasonable accommodations ensues only where the employer bears responsibility for the breakdown.” (Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 952, 984-985.) “However, the fact that an employer took some steps to work with an employee to identify reasonable accommodations does not absolve the employer of liability under § 12940(n).” (Id. at 985.)
“[T]he burden of proving ability to perform the essential functions of a job with accommodation” is on the plaintiff in both disability discrimination claims and failure to accommodate claims. (Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 977.) Additionally, “the burden of proving the availability of a reasonable accommodation rests on the employee.” (Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 984.) “[E]limination of an essential function is not a reasonable accommodation,” nor is reallocating essential functions to other employees. (Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 359, 375; Dark v. Curry County (9th Cir. 2006) 451 F.3d 1078, 1089.)
Assuming the employee is disabled, the employer cannot prevail on summary judgment on a claim of failure to reasonably accommodate unless it establishes through undisputed facts that “(1) reasonable accommodation was offered and refused; (2) there simply was no vacant position within the employer’s organization for which the disabled employee was qualified and which the disabled employee was capable of performing with or without accommodation; or (3) the employer 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.” (Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 245, 263.)
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.)
FRED DAILEY VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
19STCV42465
Jun 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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).
RAUL ZAMORA CRUZ VS ALLSTAR LOGO
22TRCV00589
Jan 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
STEPHANIE NAJAR VS THE GUIDANCE CHARTER SCHOOL
BC672216
Dec 14, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
JESUS ANTONIO VS DECKY CO INC
BC598598
Dec 08, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MICHAEL J HOLMES VS BEHAVIOR FRONTIERS LLC
BC649094
Oct 25, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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 .)
LEYLA ARENAS VS SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
20STCV00449
Nov 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
DAVID GOMEZ VS THIBIANT INTERNATIONAL INC
22CHCV00122
Nov 18, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
HAZEL REYES VS DISNEY CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND INTERACTIVE MEDIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV02585
Oct 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Failure to provide reasonable accommodation Plaintiffs second cause of action is for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.
VIXENTE MEDRANO MEDINA VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT AGENCY
21STCV21616
Mar 08, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
process and/or the duty to provide her with a reasonable accommodation; that duty is imposed by FEHA.
RISA SOTO VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION/CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES
34-2019-80003147-CU-WM-GDS
Sep 11, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
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
JEAN WARD VS AUTOZONERS ET AL
BC691436
Nov 06, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
HANTASH VS. INTERTEK USA INC
37-2017-00015893-CU-OE-CTL
Oct 18, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
NASARITA RANGEL VS MEMORIALCARE MEDICAL GROUP
BC692113
Aug 07, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
KANAVOU VS CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY
30-2016-00840960-CU-CO-CJC
Feb 14, 2017
Orange County, CA
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
STEPHANIE DE FIORE VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
BC581138
Feb 08, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
have the ability to perform the essential duties of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation.
COTA VS. SOUTH COAST OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER
30-2018-00988156
Sep 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
“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.
DAVID GULLY VS CITY OF GLENDALE ET AL
BC613294
Mar 15, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
CASEY VS. FERRY INTERNATIONAL, LLC
30-2019-01112777-CU-WT-CJC
Mar 05, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
CASE V. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
30-2020-01137926
Sep 28, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
GLORIA HERNANDEZ VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER
BC677372
Jul 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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).)
SONIA WISNIEWSKA VS INFINITY RENEWABLES ET AL
16CV05696
Mar 20, 2017
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.)
FCS059547 - HICKS, SHAWTIANA V MARATHON STAFFING, ET AL (DMS)
FCS059547
Jul 11, 2023
Solano County, CA
On January 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), alleging causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (2) hostile work environment harassment in violation of the FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the 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) whistleblower retaliation
TINA EDWARDS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
23STCV20219
Apr 25, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MARIN VS WAYFAIR LLC
CVRI2100960
Aug 03, 2022
Riverside County, CA
(“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
VANESSA HERRERA VS METROLAB INC ET AL
BC685771
Jul 31, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
HECTOR ALMAZAN VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
19STCV14043
Sep 06, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the City failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation for his purported mental disability.
JOSE DE ANDA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
20STCV02115
Jan 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
ROMERO VS. ALUMINUM PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC
30-2018-00975260-CU-OE-CJC
May 02, 2019
Orange County, CA
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).)
KING VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CVRI2104823
Jan 20, 2023
Riverside County, CA
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.
LOPEZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
37-2019-00015516-CU-OE-CTL
Feb 27, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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
MICAH ABSHEAR VS NATIONAL CARRIER EXCHANGE INC
20STCV35697
Apr 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
EILEEN PAGAN VS AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION
BC635180
Feb 15, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
“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.
ZAMORA V. TURNING POINT OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
19CECG02988
Sep 17, 2020
Fresno County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
PATRICIA L LACY VS. DIGNITY HEALTH
56-2016-00476782-CU-WT-VTA
May 22, 2017
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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).)
CRISTIAN DELGADO BARRERA VS ALBERTSON'S LLC
18STCV05222
Sep 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
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).)
CRISTIAN DELGADO BARRERA VS ALBERTSON'S LLC
18STCV05222
Sep 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
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
JOSE DE ANDA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
20STCV02115
Aug 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
interactive process to help identify one, but the employee is able to identify a specific, available reasonable accommodation through the litigation process.’”
BARAHONA VS. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.
30-2018-00983080-CU-WT-CJC
Jan 28, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.)
CRUZ CASAS VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
BC698745
Nov 19, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.)
CRUZ CASAS VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
BC698745
Oct 28, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
JOSE DIAZ VS STANFORD HOTELS CORPORATION ET AL
BC699415
Dec 17, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
“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.
BLAIR V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO
PC-20180575
Jun 25, 2021
El Dorado County, CA
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.
NASARITA RANGEL VS MEMORIALCARE MEDICAL GROUP
BC692113
Jan 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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
CASTILLO VS GRID ALTERNATIVES
RIC2002198
Dec 07, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.
LAW V. CITY OF CUPERTINO
16CV301060
Jun 12, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Reasonable Accommodation.
FCS054031 - ANTONIO, VICENTE JR. VS. SUTTER HEALTH (DMS)
FCS054031
Mar 13, 2022
Solano County, CA
Reasonable Accommodation.
FCS054031 - ANTONIO, VICENTE JR. VS. SUTTER HEALTH (DMS)
FCS054031
Mar 10, 2022
Solano County, CA
Reasonable Accommodation.
FCS054031 - ANTONIO, VICENTE JR. VS. SUTTER HEALTH (DMS)
FCS054031
Mar 12, 2022
Solano County, CA
Reasonable Accommodation.
FCS054031 - ANTONIO, VICENTE JR. VS. SUTTER HEALTH (DMS)
FCS054031
Mar 14, 2022
Solano County, CA
Reasonable Accommodation.
FCS054031 - ANTONIO, VICENTE JR. VS. SUTTER HEALTH (DMS)
FCS054031
Mar 11, 2022
Solano County, CA
Reasonable Accommodation.
FCS054031 - ANTONIO, VICENTE JR. VS. SUTTER HEALTH (DMS)
FCS054031
Mar 15, 2022
Solano County, CA
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).)
ELVIS ARNWINE VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
22STCV28299
Apr 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
BEATRIZ RAMOS VS. CLEVENGER MERCANTILE, LLC
21CECG02853
Dec 08, 2022
Fresno County, CA
[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.
BRUCE W CAUBLE VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES
37-2017-00029430-CU-OE-CTL
Jan 11, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
(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.)
EAVES VS THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC
RG19034506
Nov 03, 2021
Alameda County, CA
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.
DOUGLAS SMITH VS BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY
23STCV02429
Nov 29, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
These factors underpin Plaintiffs claim and request for reasonable accommodation. Unlike the distinction drawn between discrimination and harassment claims, it is clear that a claim for harassment arising from Plaintiffs request for reasonable accommodation is neither distinct nor different in nature from related claims.
SANAH HAMAD VS PREZZEE, INC, ET AL.
23CHCV01873
Apr 29, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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
KIM PHAM VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROBATION DEPARTMENT, ET AL.
20STCV16798
Aug 17, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MARIO MORALES VS ANCON MARINE
BC719498
Feb 21, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
ELLIS VS FOOD FOR LIFE BAKING CO INC
RIC1808693
Sep 13, 2019
Riverside County, CA
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.
MATTINGLY-VIERS VS. COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
30-2015-00819631-CU-WT-CJC
Oct 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
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.
POLIKO FAUTANU VS. DIVERSIFIED TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC.
21CECG00623
Oct 19, 2022
Fresno County, CA
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.
KIMBERLY RAMIREZ VS. CITY OF FRESNO
21CECG01906
Jan 11, 2024
Fresno County, CA
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).)
DELIA SARMIENTO VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
BC710070
Sep 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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).)
SANTOS CELSO MARTINEZ VS YOSHINOYA AMERICA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
19STCV07902
Mar 03, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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)).
TORRES VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CVRI2000003
Mar 03, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.
ROBIN REID VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
18STCV05356
Nov 13, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.)
RICK KNOPF VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, ET AL.
21STCV25775
May 11, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ALBARRAN VS MCSPI, INC
RIC1901185
Dec 29, 2020
Riverside County, CA
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.)
RICK KNOPF VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, ET AL.
21STCV25775
Jun 16, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
DRAKE VS JURUPA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIC1903338
Jul 07, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.)
JUSTIN AQUINO VS POMONA VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
21STCV24838
Nov 18, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ERENI YOUSSEF VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROBATION DEPT
BC701973
Apr 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ VS. SUBWAY
30-2016-00837542-CU-OE-CJC
Nov 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
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.
Garcia-Rodriguez vs. Subway 2016-00837542-CU-JR-CJC
Nov 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
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).)
GROVER VS THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CVPS2302600
Mar 14, 2024
Riverside County, CA
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.”
LAWRENCE VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
30-2016-00831062-CU-DF-CJC
Jun 16, 2017
Orange County, CA
“[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.)
HERNANDEZ VS CONTAINER MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC
RIC1905955
Jul 01, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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).)
REBECCA LYNN ANDERSON VS MRS. GOOCH'S NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC.,
23STCV10493
Aug 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
SEHEL ALEMANSOUR VS LOTUS OXNARD CORP, ET AL.
18STCV09081
Jun 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
PATRICK FINN VS. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOLD DISTRICT, ET AL
LC106257
Jul 09, 2020
Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
[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.
KIARA JONES VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
20STCV19812
Nov 23, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.”
JOSE LARES VS VALLEY VISTA SERVICES INC ET AL
BC701012
Aug 19, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
MARILYN M. SANTIAGO VS. DIGNITY HEALTH, INC. ET AL
CGC16553176
Aug 22, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
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
KYSA PAUL VS TARGET CORPORATION, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV25148
Feb 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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).
THOMAS BERTRAND VS TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A.,INC., ET AL.
19LBCV00124
Aug 27, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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
ARETHA HOWELL VS THERAPEUTIC LIVING CENTERS FOR THE BLIND IN
BC697643
Jun 01, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.”].)
MARIBEL CHAIREZ VS LIFOAM INDUSTRIES INC ET AL
BC629694
Aug 23, 2018
Robert S. Draper or Gail Ruderman Feuer
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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
ARTHUR RONDEAU VS UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV07480
Jun 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Re: Plaintiff Could Not Have Performed Her Job With Or Without Reasonable Accommodation This issue goes to whether Plaintiff qualifies as a disabled individual for purposes of the fourth cause of action for failure to accommodate under FEHA and fifth cause of action for failure to engage in interactive process under FEHA.
VICTORIA FLORES VS PARTER MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
20STCV37223
Jul 19, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MERCEDES DALMACIO VS LIVE OAK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
21CV00835
Nov 28, 2021
Santa Cruz County, CA
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.
MERCEDES DALMACIO VS LIVE OAK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
21CV00835
Nov 20, 2021
Santa Cruz County, CA
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.
MERCEDES DALMACIO VS LIVE OAK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
21CV00835
Nov 18, 2021
Santa Cruz County, CA
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.
MERCEDES DALMACIO VS LIVE OAK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
21CV00835
Nov 26, 2021
Santa Cruz County, CA
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.
MERCEDES DALMACIO VS LIVE OAK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
21CV00835
Nov 29, 2021
Santa Cruz County, CA
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.
MERCEDES DALMACIO VS LIVE OAK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
21CV00835
Nov 27, 2021
Santa Cruz County, CA
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.
MERCEDES DALMACIO VS LIVE OAK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
21CV00835
Nov 24, 2021
Santa Cruz County, CA
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.
MERCEDES DALMACIO VS LIVE OAK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
21CV00835
Nov 22, 2021
Santa Cruz County, CA
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.
MERCEDES DALMACIO VS LIVE OAK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
21CV00835
Nov 25, 2021
Santa Cruz County, CA
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.
MERCEDES DALMACIO VS LIVE OAK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
21CV00835
Nov 19, 2021
Santa Cruz County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.