Because the jury verdict form did not specify whether the employer’s response to one or both of Plaintiff’s injuries violated FEHA, the court of appeal ordered a retrial as to the employer’s response to Plaintiff’s wrist injury only. The Workers’ Compensation Act did not bar Plaintiff’s noneconomic damages stemming from her depressive disorder because those damages allegedly arose from her employer’s failure to provide reasonable accommodations or engage in an interactive process, rather than because of her wrist injury. While the court found that substantial evidence supported a finding that reasonable accommodations were available to accommodate Plaintiff’s wrist injury, Plaintiff failed to identify a reasonable accommodation for her shoulder injury. The availability of a reasonable accommodation is an element of a claim under FEHA for failure to engage in the interactive process. The court denied the motion, and Defendant appealed.Ĭourt’s Decision: The California Court of Appeal reversed as to the issue of whether the availability of a reasonable accommodation is an element of an interactive process claim, which necessitated a retrial, but held that the Workers’ Compensation Act did not bar the portion of the FEHA claims to be retried. Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that (1) the evidence presented did not support the availability of a reasonable accommodation during the relevant time frame, and (2) the damages arose from injuries at work and were thus recoverable only through workers’ compensation. The jury rejected Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim, but found in Plaintiff’s favor on her interactive process and reasonable accommodation claims and awarded economic and noneconomic damages. The court rejected Defendant’s motion, holding that the availability of a reasonable accommodation is not an element of an interactive process claim, and instructed the jury accordingly.
At the close of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief, Defendant moved for nonsuit, arguing that Plaintiff failed to prove that there was an available and effective reasonable accommodation that could have been made at the times Plaintiff alleged Defendant failed to engage in the interactive process. She alleged that she developed a depressive disorder as a result of Defendant’s conduct.
Plaintiff sued Defendant alleging disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to provide reasonable accommodation, all in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Thereafter, she did not return to work and did not provide any further paperwork requesting an extension of her leave. In December 2015, Plaintiff injured her shoulder opening the door of a dishwasher and was placed off work by her doctor until March 2016. Her supervisors never altered Plaintiff’s job duties or gave Plaintiff time off to address her wrist issue.
She notified her supervisors of her carpal tunnel and wrist pain and often sought help from coworkers performing her kitchen tasks. The Workers’ Compensation Act does not bar emotional distress damages where those damages arise from an employer’s failure to provide reasonable accommodations or engage in an interactive process, rather than because of a physical injury suffered at work.įacts: Plaintiff Anahit Shirvanyan, an assistant kitchen worker for Defendant Los Angeles Community College District, was diagnosed with nerve damage and carpal tunnel in her wrist in 2014. Summary: The availability of a reasonable accommodation is an element of a claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for failure to engage in the interactive process.
0 kommentar(er)
