DFEH v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 642 F.3d 728 (2011)

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and Steven Carauddo alleged Lucent violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act when it terminated Carauddo’s employment as an installer because he could not lift more than 30 pounds due to a back injury. The district court granted summary judgment to Lucent, and the Ninth Circuit Court

Stiefel v. Bechtel Corp., 624 F.3d 1240 (2010)

James Richard Stiefel worked for Bechtel as an ironworker at a power plant. Five weeks before he was laid off, Stiefel injured his left hand while on the job. In his lawsuit, Stiefel alleged Bechtel laid him off as part of a “medical reduction in force,” which would result in cost savings to Bechtel under its

Milan v. City of Holtville, 186 Cal. App. 4th 1028 (2010)

Tanya Milan, who worked as a water treatment operator for the City of Holtville, was injured on the job while moving a large piece of metal. After Milan applied for workers’ compensation benefits, a physician who had been retained on behalf of the city, examined her and concluded she would not be able to return to work at the water treatment plant. Shortly thereafter, the city notified Milan that because she would be unable to return to work, it had decided to offer her rehabilitation benefits, which she accepted before taking an online real estate course. Milan continued to receive a regular paycheck from the city until she was notified 18 months after the injury had occurred that the city was terminating her employment. Milan filed this lawsuit against the city, alleging it had violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act by failing to determine whether it could provide effective accommodations for her disability.

Scotch v. Art Inst. of Cal.-Orange County, Inc., 173 Cal. App. 4th 986 (2009)

Carmine Scotch sued his former employer, the Art Institute of California-Orange County, Inc. (“AIC”) for discrimination based on his disability (HIV), failure to make reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in the required interactive process, failure to maintain a workplace free of discrimination, and retaliation. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary

The Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (“VEVRAA”) creates a variety of affirmative action obligations for employers with federal government contracts. The Act was amended in 2002 by the Jobs for Veterans Act (“JVA”). In May 2008, the Department of Labor finalized rules that implement changes to these obligations made by the JVA for employers with federal government contracts that are entered into or modified on or after December 1, 2003. Employers with federal contracts entered into before December 1, 2003 must continue to comply with VEVRAA’s pre-JVA requirements, and employers with contracts in both categories are required to comply with both the new and the old regulations.

Most of the affirmative action requirements set out in VEVRAA remain unchanged by the JVA. This Tip of the Month outlines several important requirements under VEVRAA, and highlights the key changes created by the JVA.

Wilson v. County of Orange, 169 Cal. App. 4th 1185 (2009)

Julie Ann Wilson worked as a radio dispatcher for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department’s emergency communications system. Wilson sued the County for disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) on the ground that it allegedly had failed to make reasonable accommodation for her medical condition (antiphospholipid antibody syndrome or “thick

Arteaga v. Brink’s, Inc., 163 Cal. App. 4th 327 (2008)

Brink’s employee Carlos Arteaga was the subject of an internal investigation into various shortages totaling $7,668 that occurred while he was acting in his capacity as an ATM messenger. The investigation was conducted after one of Arteaga’s managers noticed there had been 16 shortages in five months on runs in which Arteaga had been

Humble v. Boeing Co., 305 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2002)

Su Humble, a union member who was employed as a fabrication bench mechanic for Boeing, suffered an on-the-job injury to her shoulder. After taking a series of medical leaves of absence over the course of approximately 15 months, Humble was told that there were no lightduty positions available to accommodate her alleged disability when