Amador v. SBE Entertainment Group, LLC, 3:19-cv-06414

Background:

Plaintiff Azucena Amador worked as the Clift Hotel general cashier (2001–2018); she developed repetitive motion injuries (RMI) in 2016 and repeatedly requested an ergonomic workstation evaluation and accommodations.
SBE (manager until May 2018) supplied reduced hours, frequent breaks, and generic ergonomic equipment but repeatedly declined or delayed a formal ergonomic assessment; Amador continued to have pain and intermittent disability leaves through 2018.
Toward the May 2018 Sonesta conversion, SBE and Sonesta decided to replace the general cashier role with a cash machine and did not rehire Amador; internal emails show managers urging not to retain her and noting her extended leaves.
Amador filed a DFEH charge (Aug. 1, 2018) and sued SBE and Sonesta alleging FEHA and CFRA claims: disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent, and punitive damages.
The court denied summary judgment on claims for failure to accommodate, failure to engage, discrimination/retaliation as to failure to hire, and derivative failure-to-prevent claims (questions of pretext and damages remain). The court granted summary judgment on harassment, most discrimination/retaliation theories (time-barred discipline; peer ostracism), and other claims.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Continuing violation / statute of limitations	Ongoing failures to engage/accommodate from 2016–2018 make pre‑Aug‑2017 conduct timely under the continuing violation doctrine	Events before Aug 1, 2017 are time‑barred; only May 2018 failure‑to‑hire is within limitations	Court: continuing‑violation applies for interactive‑process/accommodation claims (not discipline); Jan 2017 discipline is time‑barred; peer‑isolation timing unclear but fails on other grounds
Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (FEHA §12940(m))	SBE never performed an ergonomic evaluation as doctors requested and provided ineffective generic equipment	SBE provided accommodations (reduced hours, breaks, ergonomic chair/keyboard) and need not adopt plaintiff’s preferred solution	Denied summary judgment: triable issues whether offered equipment was ineffective and whether further accommodation (ergonomic assessment) was required; but discrimination claim premised on this failure failed for lack of causal nexus
Failure to engage in the interactive process (FEHA §12940(n))	Employer knew accommodations were failing and refused to continue the interactive process or order an ergonomic assessment	Employer participated and provided accommodations; plaintiff did not accept some offers initially	Denied summary judgment: triable issues exist about when/if the interactive process broke down and whether a reasonable accommodation remained available
Disability discrimination — failure to hire	Sonesta and SBE used conversion to eliminate role to avoid retaining/re‑hiring Amador; emails show adamance to not hire her	Business justification: legitimate, nondiscriminatory decision to install a cash machine (efficiency, 24/7 access, tip payments)	Denied summary judgment: plaintiff made prima facie showing and produced specific evidence (emails, timing, delay to purchase) creating a triable issue of pretext
Disability discrimination — discipline/ostracism	Discipline for call‑outs and managerial encouragement of ostracism were adverse actions tied to disability	Discipline is outside statute of limitations; ostracism not an adverse employment action nor severe/pervasive harassment	Granted (dismissed): Jan 2017 discipline/time‑barred; peer ostracism does not amount to adverse action or actionable harassment
Retaliation (FEHA/CFRA)	Protected activities (complaint, counsel notice, CFRA/FMLA leave requests, accommodation requests) led to discipline, denial of accommodation, and failure to hire	Legitimate business reasons for actions; many claims time‑barred or lack causal link	Granted in part, denied in part: retaliation claim survives as to failure to hire (pretext issue); other retaliation theories dismissed or time‑barred
Harassment / hostile work environment	Supervisors fostered ostracism and made derogatory comments; conditions were hostile	Supervisor conduct was management‑related and not severe or pervasive	Granted: plaintiff failed to show severe and pervasive disability‑based harassment; summary judgment for defendant
Punitive damages	Plaintiff: evidence shows malice/oppression by managers and possible managing‑agent conduct (e.g., Pace, Fischer)	Defendants: no managing agent engaged in malice; conduct not sufficient for punitive damages	Denied: triable issues exist whether managers acted with malice and whether any were managing agents, so punitive damages survive for jury determination

Key Cases Cited

Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (continuing violation doctrine applies when employer’s acts are sufficiently related)
Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 798 (defining permanence inquiry for continuing violation)
Nadaf‑Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 166 Cal. App. 4th 952 (interactive process requires direct, ongoing employer‑employee communication)
Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128 (employer must continue interactive process when initial accommodation fails)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (California adopts McDonnell Douglas framework)
Wernick v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 91 F.3d 379 (reasonableness of accommodation is fact‑specific)
Roby v. McKesson Corp., 47 Cal.4th 686 (distinguishing discrimination and harassment; evidence may overlap)
Kimbro v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 889 F.2d 869 (employer liable for failing to attempt a plausible reasonable accommodation)
White v. Ultramar, Inc., 21 Cal.4th 563 (requirements for punitive damages against corporations; managing‑agent standard)