 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Flores v. Mobil Corp.1/31/2002
and practice prohibited employees on modified duty from bidding on jobs, plaintiff did not bid on the position. Plaintiff did, however, tell Maureen LaPoint, who "worked up front at the medical building," that he was interested in the warehouse employee job. Defendant disclaimed any policy or practice prohibiting employees on modified duty from bidding on vacancies. Defendant presented evidence that in 1996, two months after plaintiff was injured, and while he was on light duty, he had bid on another warehouse employee position. That vacant position was awarded to an employee with seniority over plaintiff.
There was conflicting evidence as to plaintiff's ability to meet the physical demands of the warehouse employee position. Defendant presented evidence the requirements for the position exceeded plaintiff's physical abilities given his disability. Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he had observed others performing the essential functions of the job and he knew he could fulfill the requirements. Plaintiff presented further evidence the warehouse employee job requirements did not exceed his physical limitations. In spring 1998, defendant concluded plaintiff's condition was permanent and stationary. Dr. C.J. Gean, a physician employed by defendant stated, "I . . . required several permanent restrictions, including no repetitive bending, squatting, or crawling, no lifting, pulling or pushing of weights over fifty pounds, and walking only as tolerated."
Scott Brase, the Mobil human resources advisor, was notified that plaintiff's condition was permanent and stationary. Consistent with defendant's policy and practice, Mr. Brase described what happened then: "I then investigated whether there were any job vacancies in the bargaining unit at the Torrance refinery that could be performed by [plaintiff] with or without reasonable accommodations." Mr. Brase spoke with Steven Carrington regarding job openings in the maintenance department. Mr. Carrington was aware of plaintiff's work restrictions. Mr. Carrington believed that plaintiff could not work as a pipe fitter. Indeed, there was no dispute as to plaintiff's inability to resume his former job, with or without accommodation. Mr. Carrington told Mr. Brase that there were no vacancies in the maintenance department. Mr. Brase also spoke with Angie Hernandez who was responsible for filling job vacancies outside the Torrance refinery. Ms. Hernandez said there were no vacancies "in the pipeline organization." Mr. Brase, who was himself responsible for staffing positions in the refinery outside the maintenance department, knew of no vacancies. He spoke with an administrative assistant in the human resources department, Mary Ann Thomas, to verify that there were no positions available in the refinery. Mr. Brase also looked into openings with the electricians' local and the union representing pipeline workers. Ultimately, Mr. Brase concluded, "I determined that there were no . . . vacant positions [plaintiff could perform with or without accommodation] available in the bargaining unit or anywhere else in the refinery."
On April 27, 1998, Mr. Brase met with plaintiff and others. Also present was plaintiff's union representative. Mr. Brase explained: plaintiff's injury was permanent and stable; plaintiff was unable to resume his pipe fitter duties; and there were no other jobs available. Hence, Mr. Brase told the group that consistent with defendant's policy and practice: plaintiff's temporary light duty work was ending; plaintiff would immediately begin receiving short term disability benefits; and plaintiff was eligible to undergo vocational rehabilitation and should apply for benefits as soon as possible.
Plaintiff remained on
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|