Skip to main content

Employer Is Not Required to Remove Essential Job Functions as a Reasonable Accommodation


Nealy v. City of Santa Monica - Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight


Facts:  Tony Nealy worked for the City of Santa Monica as a waste equipment operator.  After he sustained work related injuries to his knee and back, he took several leaves of absence and had multiple surgeries.  Nealy's doctor reported that Nealy could return to work but was subject to certain restrictions, such as no kneeling, bending, stooping, walking over uneven terrain, running, prolonged standing, or heavy lifting.  When the City met with Nealy, it identified the essential functions of the position that it believed Nealy could not perform based upon his medical restrictions.  

After discussions, the City concluded it could not reasonably accommodate Nealy in the position and offered to reassign him.  Nealy subsequently applied for a city planning staff assistant position.  However, he did not have the appropriate experience for this new position.  Although the City extended Nealy's leave of absence to allow him to apply for disability retirement, his application was rejected because he failed to submit required information.  Nealy then sued the City for disability discrimination and retaliation.  The trial court granted the City's motion to dismiss Nealy's claims.  Nealy subsequently appealed. 

Holding:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling and held that the City was not required to eliminate essential functions of a position as a reasonable accommodation to Nealy.  Of note, the Court held that under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), an employer is not obligated to accommodate an employee by excusing him from the performance of essential job functions.  In this instance, the Court recognized Nealy's argument that he could perform one essential job function (operate the vehicle), but looked to the fact that he was unable to perform many other essential job functions such as heavy lifting, clearing debris and trash from the hopper of vehicles, and conducting vehicle inspections, among others job functions.  

As for Nealy's argument that the City should have reassigned him to a vacant staff position, the Court rejected this argument and held that the City was not required to create a new position for him or provide "an indefinite leave of absence to await possible future vacancies." 

Judgment:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling and held the City of Santa Monica was not required to eliminate essential job functions of Nealy's position in order to reasonably accommodate his medical condition. 

The Takeaway:  I wanted to write a post about this case for the simple reason that the facts of the case are relatively straightforward and the court's reasoning is to the point.  This case is one that employers should look at when considering what type of reasonable accommodation must be extended to an employee with a condition that prevents them from performing certain essential job functions.  In this instance, I think the court's reasoning is correct in that an employer cannot be "forced" to reasonably accommodate an employee when that employee can no longer perform many/most of the essential job functions they were hired to perform.  If Nealy had been allowed to stay in the position, it would have become a burden on the City to then shift more responsibilities to someone else (or hire another employee) to perform most of Nealy's job functions. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Flier

Date:  January 21, 2015

Opinion:  www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B246634.PDF

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more