interactive process claim in California

2021First, the employee must request an accommodation.” (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54 (Gelfo).) “Second, the parties must engage in an interactive process regarding the requested accommodation and, if the process fails, responsibility for the failure rests with the party who failed to participate in good faith.” (Ibid.) Thus, while a reasonable accommodation claim is independent of an interactive process claim, “each necessarily implicates the other.” (Ibid.) Davidson argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on her reasonable accommodation requ

2017SCPMG was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Featherstone’s failure to engage in the interactive process claim Under section 12940, subdivision (n), it is separately actionable for an employer to fail “to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee ... to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if *1169 any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee . . . with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition.” (§ 12940, subd. (n); see Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp., supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 54 .) “ ‘The ‘“i

2023Failure to Engage in Interactive Process “‘Under FEHA, an employer must engage in a good faith interactive process with the disabled employee to explore the alternatives to accommodate the disability.’ [Citations.] FEHA requires an informal process with the employee to attempt to identify reasonable accommodations, not necessarily ritualized discussions. [Citation.] [¶] To prevail on a claim for failure to engage in the interactive process, the employee must identify a reasonable accommodation that would have been available at the time the interactive process occurred [or should have occurred]

2022(See, e.g., Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 952 , 979−980.) Such persuasive federal authority supports our holding that the FEHA does not include an interactive process claim based on associational disability.

2020Availability of a reasonable accommodation is an element of an interactive process claim Well-reasoned precedent supports the District’s argument that, in order to succeed on a cause of action for failure to engage in an 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 (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1018 (Scotch); Nadaf-Rahrov, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 981 [“section 12940[, subdivision] (n) imposes liability only if a reasonable accommodati

2020Brown’s Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process Claim Fails Because He Has Not Identified Any Accommodation the City Should Have Provided The FEHA makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition.” (§ 12940, subd. (n).) The trial court concluded that Brown’s failure to engage in the interactive process c

2020(See Woodcock v. Fontana Scaffolding & Equipment Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 452, 457 (Woodcock) [“[i]f the verdict is hopelessly ambiguous, a reversal [and retrial] is required”].) We disagree with Shirvanyan that such retrial should be limited to the issue of damages.

2020(See Woodcock v. Fontana Scaffolding & Equipment Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 452, 457 (Woodcock) [“[i]f the verdict is hopelessly ambiguous, a reversal [and retrial] is required”].) We disagree with Shirvanyan that such retrial should be limited to the issue of damages.

2007(Jensen, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 262 .) “ ‘Employees do not have at their disposal the extensive information concerning possible alternative positions or possible accommodations which employers have. . . .’ ” (Ibid.) Even some federal courts in ADA cases have concluded that “an employer who has received proper notice cannot escape its duty to engage in the interactive process simply because the employee did not come forward with a reasonable accommodation that would prevail in litigation.” (Taylor v. Phoenixville School Dist. (3d Cir. 1999) 184 F.3d 296, 317 (Taylor).) Nor does the reasona

2007(Taylor, supra, 184 F.3d at p. 317 .) Sufficiency of the Verdict on Interactive Process Damages ACSC contends reversal is required because the jury did not specify which damages are attributable to the interactive process claim and which are attributable to the retaliation claim.

2020Availability of a reasonable accommodation is an element of an interactive process claim Well-reasoned precedent supports the District’s argument that, in order to succeed on a cause of action for failure to engage in an 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 (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1018 (Scotch); Nadaf-Rahrov, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 981 [“section 12940[, subdivision] (n) imposes liability only if a reasonable accommodati

2020Availability of a reasonable accommodation is an element of an interactive process claim Well-reasoned precedent supports the District’s argument that, in order to succeed on a cause of action for failure to engage in an 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 (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1018 (Scotch); Nadaf-Rahrov, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 981 [“section 12940[, subdivision] (n) imposes liability only if a reasonable accommodati

2016Moore ’s second and third causes of action for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA 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 applicant’s or employee’s known disability. (§ 12940, subds. (a), (m).) “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 its

2016Moore's second and third causes of action for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA 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 applicant's or employee's known disability. (§ 12940, subds. (a), (m).) "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 itse

2007(Wyler v. Feuer (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 392, 404-405 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 626 ].) Here the verdicts on the reasonable accommodation issue and the interactive process claim are not inconsistent.

2007(Wyler v. Feuer (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 392, 404-405 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 626 ].) Here the verdicts on the reasonable accommodation issue and the interactive process claim are not inconsistent.

2025(Schmidt v. Bank of America, N.A. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1513 [appellants forfeit any contentions of error regarding the dismissal of a cause of action by failing to raise or address the contentions in their briefs on appeal].) 7 violation of this provision.

2024Gonzalez commenced the instant action by filing suit against appellants and Cheryle Anaya.3 In her complaint, Gonzalez pleads the following 12 causes of action: (1) violation of pregnancy disability leave (PDL); (2) retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (3) retaliation in violation of PDL; (4) disability discrimination—failure to make reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (6) pregnancy discrimination in violation of FEHA; (7) disability discrimination (FEHA)—wrongful termination; (8) retalia

2023Failure to Engage in Interactive Process “‘Under FEHA, an employer must engage in a good faith interactive process with the disabled employee to explore the alternatives to accommodate the disability.’ [Citations.] FEHA requires an informal process with the employee to attempt to identify reasonable accommodations, not necessarily ritualized discussions. [Citation.] [¶] To prevail on a claim for failure to engage in the interactive process, the employee must identify a reasonable accommodation that would have been available at the time the interactive process occurred [or should have occurred]

2023(See Swanson, supra, at pp. 971- 972.) 20 As noted above, Medina testified at her deposition that, for purposes of the bus aide assignment, no reasonable accommodation was available for a special education assistant who cannot lift the students on the bus.

2016Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress obligates the plaintiff to show “‘“‘“(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.”’”’ [Citations.]” (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050 (Hughes).) Conduct is “‘outrageous’” where “it is so

2016Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress obligates the plaintiff to show “‘“‘“(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.”’”’ [Citations.]” (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050 (Hughes).) Conduct is “‘outrageous’” where “it is so

2008(See Raine, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1226, fn. 7 [where provisions are similarly worded, federal decisions interpreting ADA are instructive in applying FEHA]; Green, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pp. 262-263 [where Legislature deliberately attempted to conform the FEHA to the ADA, the two acts should be construed similarly].) Second, the policy rationale set forth in Willis, supra, 108 F.3d at page 285 , applies under the FEHA as well because the statute has a remedial purpose similar to that of the ADA: “It is hereby declared as the public policy of this state that it is necessary to protect and s

2008(Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 935, 950-951 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 142 ]; Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc., supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 225 ; Spitzer, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1384-1385.) These cases involved requests for reassignment and the courts held that the employer was not liable if there was no vacant position for which the employee was qualified.

2008(Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 935, 950-951 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 142 ]; Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc., supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 225 ; Spitzer, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1384-1385.) These cases involved requests for reassignment and the courts held that the employer was not liable if there was no vacant position for which the employee was qualified.