Bookmark and Share
Contact Us
Services
About Us | Home| Testimonials
bLAWg
Your Employee Rights
New Law
Employee Rights Commentary
Site Map
Articles
Employee Rights Videos
Employee Rights Events Calendar
FIRM NEWS
Search Entire Site

Disability Accommodation

Reasonable Accommodation of a Disabled Employee

In Claudio v. Regents of the University of California, No. C046744 (Cal App. Dist. 3 11/22/05), the facts of the case were as follows:
  • Plaintiff Claudio was employed at the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Davis.
  • Plaintiff contracted a disease that left him disabled because he could not work around animals that might infect him, and took a medical disability leave of two years.
  • After learning that the University had decided to fire him, Plaintiff requested the University's employment specialist to communicate further directly with his attorney.
  • The employment specialist did not communicate with the attorney (she did not communicate with him because he was a workers comp attorney), unilaterally decided that the Plaintiff's skills and qualifications did not match any of the available job openings at the University, and then effectively terminated Plaintiff's employment.

Analysis

  • The Court relied on Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 245 and stated that the employer must prove 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.
    • The Court held that the University may be held liable for not engaging in good faith discussions because it did not contact Plaintiff's attorney. It held that because the University did not engage in an interactive process, it could not be established that there were no alternative jobs open.
  • The Court also held that Plaintiff pursued many grievances through his union's collective bargaining agreement, but did not seek administrative mandamus from the unfavorable decisions. Thus, the Court held that those decisions were final and binding.

Conclusion

The employer must bear an active duty to initiate an inquiry with the employee as to the employee's ability to perform work. The employer must also actively investigate and identify available alternative positions within the organization if the employee cannot perform his original job.

Employee Rights Attorney Frank Pray

5160 Campus Drive

Newport Beach CA 92660

949.251.1006

877.job.atty


OBTAIN YOUR FREE

CASE EVALUATION

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Enter Your Email Address to Sign Up for Free Practical Tips on How to Assert Your Employee Rights
For Email Marketing you can trust

Amazon.com Coupons