This published opinion offers an excellent outline of the cases and standards to consider to ensure FEHA pleadings withstand a summary judgment motion.
A former employee sued the Art Institute of California-Orange County under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. (FEHA), alleging discrimination based on disability.
He alleged his employer violated the FEHA by reducing his employment status to part time because he was HIV-positive, failing to make a reasonable accommodation, failing to engage in the required interactive process, failing to maintain a workplace free of discrimination, and retaliating against him.
To review the propriety of the employment discrimination claim, the Court applied the standard set forth in Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. ([2005] 135 Cal.App.4th 1088) - which calls for presenting evidence that (1) the employer's stated reason for the adverse employment decision was false or pretextual, and (2) there was a causal link between the worker's revelation he was HIV-positive and the adverse employment decision.
To review the propriety of the reasonable accommodation claim, the Court relied on Nadaf-Rahrov v. The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. ([2008] 166 Cal.App.4th 952) - which requires "a modification or adjustment to the workplace that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job held or desired."
And to review the claim that the employer failed to engage in the interactive process, the Court, after analyzing several cases, ruled that the employee must identify a reasonable, available accommodation to recover (which the employee did not do).
The Court ultimately affirmed the summary judgment for the employer on all causes of action.
The case is Scotch v. Art Institute.
To read the full opinion,
→
CLICK HERE.
