Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles
194 Cal. App. 4th 757
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Rory Cuiellette, LAPD officer, was placed on disability leave and received a 100% permanent disability finding in workers’ comp.
- In May 2003, the City allowed him to return to work in a light-duty, administrative court-desk position.
- The City had a long-standing policy of placing disabled officers in permanent light-duty roles avoiding field duties.
- In June 2003, the City informed him it could not accommodate him due to his 100% disability, sending him home.
- The trial court found FEHA liability for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate; the City appeals.
- The evidence showed the City had existing light-duty vacancies and a practice of accommodating disabled officers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination under FEHA requires able to perform essential duties | Cuiellette could perform essential duties in light-duty | City could not accommodate due to medical restrictions | Yes; liability established |
| Duty to reassign when accommodation possible | Employer failed to reassess for available positions | No vacant suitable position; no reassignment required | Substantial evidence supports rejection of City’s stance |
| Proper focus for reassignment analysis | Focus on reassignment position's duties, not officer title | Consider broader police-officer duties | Court desk duties sufficed for qualified finding |
| Interactive process requirement under FEHA | City failed to engage in interactive dialogue | City relied on workers’ comp advice | Yes; failure to engage interactive process proven |
| evidentiary scope of light-duty policy | Policy showed ongoing practice of light-duty accommodations | Policy changed later; past practice irrelevant | Past policy supported liability under the applicable policy at issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. State of California, 42 Cal.4th 254 (Cal. 2007) (FEHA disability discrimination standard)
- Raine v. City of Burbank, 135 Cal.App.4th 1215 (Cal. App. 2006) (reassignment and accommodation duties under FEHA)
- Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank, 85 Cal.App.4th 245 (Cal. App. 2000) (burden to prove qualified for reassignment)
- Spitzer v. Good Guys, Inc., 80 Cal.App.4th 1389 (Cal. App. 2000) (duty to reassign if vacancy exists; undue hardship rule)
- Hastings v. Department of Corrections, 110 Cal.App.4th 963 (Cal. App. 2003) (affirmative duty to reassign where appropriate)
- Stone v. City of Mount Vernon, 118 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 1997) (focus on essential functions of the position sought)
- Raine (Prilliman/UAL context), 135 Cal.App.4th 1215 (Cal. App. 2006) (reassignment and accommodation under FEHA)
- Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc., 53 Cal.App.4th 935 (Cal. App. 1997) (employer duties to offer alternative opportunities)
- Arline (School Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline), 480 U.S. 273 (US 1987) (reasonable accommodation principles)
- McCullah v. Southern Cal. Gas Co., 82 Cal.App.4th 495 (Cal. App. 2000) (no duty to create new positions; reassignment scope)
- Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 166 Cal.App.4th 952 (Cal. App. 2008) (definition of reasonable accommodation)