Flores v. Mobil Corp.1/31/2002
ations] in the light most favorable to the opposing party." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 843; Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1520.) The trial court's stated reasons for granting summary judgment are not binding on us because we review its ruling not its rationale. (Szadolci v. Hollywood Park Operating Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 16, 19; Barnett v. Delta Lines, Inc. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 674, 682.)
B. Disability Discrimination and Reasonable Accommodation
It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a disabled employee. (§ 12940, subd. (a); see City of Moorpark v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1143, 1156-1157.) An employer is not subject to legal liability nor prohibited from discharging a disabled worker when the employee "is unable to perform his or her essential duties even with reasonable accommodations." (§ 12940, subd. (a)(1), italics added; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7293.8, subd. (b).) However, an employer must reasonably accommodate a disabled employee unless doing so would impose an "undue hardship." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7293.9; Spitzer v. Good Guys, Inc. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1383; Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 935, 947.) The FEHA was amended effective January 1, 2001, to provide "It shall be an unlawful employment practice: [ ] . . . (n) For an employer . . . to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee . . . to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee . . . with a known physical or mental disability . . . ." (§ 12940, subd. (n); Stats. 2000, ch. 1049, § 7.5, No. 13 West's Cal. Legis. Service, pp. 5823-5826.) Plaintiff has not raised any issue with respect to the January 1, 2001, amendment.
"Reasonable accommodation" is defined by statute as follows: "`Reasonable accommodation' may include either of the following: [ ] (1) Making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities. [ ] (2) Job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities." (§ 12926, subd. (n), italics added.) California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 7293.9 is to the same effect. The Court of Appeal has held there is no hard and fast rule as to the meaning of "reasonable accommodation"; the term "reasonable accommodation" is to be given a flexible interpretation. (Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 948; accord, Sargent v. Litton Systems, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 1994) 841 F.Supp. 956, 961.) The FEHA was modeled on federal law; therefore, our courts may look to federal decisions interpreting federal antidiscrimination statutes in applying state law. (Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798, 812-813; Cassista v. Community Foods, Inc. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1050, 1063.)
An employer has an affirmative obligation to reasonably accommodate a disabled employee absent undue hardship. (Spitzer v. Good Guys, Inc., supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 1383; Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at pp. 946-951; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7293.9.) The Court of Appeal has held, " n employer who knows of the disability of an employee has an affirmative duty to make known to the employee other suitable job opportunities with the employer and to determine whether the employee is interested in,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|