 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Claudio v. Regents of the University of California11/22/2005
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiff Michael Claudio appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the Regents of the University of California in Claudio's suit for wrongful termination of employment.
Plaintiff was employed by the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California at Davis (the University) when he contracted leptospirosis, a disease that left him disabled because he could not work in any area where he might become infected. He went on medical leave and moved to Florida. An employment specialist with the University began to communicate with plaintiff about the possibility of finding him another job at the University that did not require him to work around animals. Because plaintiff had been informed on four different occasions by the University that he had been fired, he requested the University's employment specialist to communicate further directly with his attorney.
The University's employment specialist phoned the law firm of plaintiff's attorney and, without talking to the attorney, learned the firm specialized in workers' compensation law. The specialist reasoned that because plaintiff's employment situation with the University was not a workers' compensation matter, she did not have to communicate with plaintiff's attorney. Without speaking further with plaintiff, the employment specialist checked plaintiff's resume against available positions at the University, concluded none was available that matched plaintiff's job skills, and effected plaintiff's termination from employment. This lawsuit followed.
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. (FEHA)) requires an employer "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 [a disabled] employee . . . ." (§ 12940, subd. (n).) We shall conclude that, ordinarily, a disabled employee may not require an employer to communicate directly with the employee's attorney, because the interactive process contemplates that the employee and employer will communicate directly with each other to exchange information about job skills and job openings. In this case, however, unusual circumstances existed because the University had informed plaintiff on four occasions that he had been fired. In those unusual circumstances, created by the University itself, we cannot say it was unreasonable as a matter of law for plaintiff to request the University to communicate with his attorney. Moreover, the University's employment specialist did not act reasonably in unilaterally determining she did not have to communicate with plaintiff's attorney simply because the attorney worked for a firm that specialized in workers' compensation law. We therefore conclude a triable issue of fact exists with respect to whether the University violated its duty to engage in the interactive process required by the FEHA.
We shall therefore reverse the judgment based on the FEHA claim. We shall also conclude plaintiff fails to show grounds for reversal with respect to the other three counts of his complaint: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) retaliation for "whistleblowing"; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. We shall therefore direct the trial court to enter a new order denying summary judgment/adjudication on the FEHA count, but granting summary adjudication in favor of the Regents on Counts Two, Three, and Four.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A motion for summary judgment should be granted if the submitted papers show that "there is no triable issue as to an
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|