Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
642 F.3d 728
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Carauddo, an installer for Lucent (and predecessor Western Electric), suffered a back injury in 2005 while performing duties requiring heavy lifting.
- Lucent's disability benefit plan and medical communication protocol required ongoing medical input and, after 52 weeks, termination unless the employee could return or apply for an unpaid extension.
- Over 2005–2006, multiple physicians issued increasingly restrictive work restrictions; Lucent repeatedly determined no accommodation was feasible and did not reinstate or reassign him.
- Carauddo was terminated January 25, 2006, on the final day of his disability period, after which a functional capacity examination allowed up to 45 pounds lifting; subsequent medical updates varied on permissible lifting, but Lucent maintained no accommodation.
- DFEH sued in state court, Lucent removed to federal court, and the district court granted summary judgment for Lucent, finding adequate communication and no pretext; diversity jurisdiction and intervention were contested.
- Carauddo sought to intervene (right) but was limited to permissive intervention; the district court also ruled on several FEHA claims, ultimately denying relief and granting Lucent summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diversity jurisdiction existence | DFEH argues California state's interest makes it real party in controversy. | Lucent contends no real party in interest; California cannot defeat diversity. | Diversity jurisdiction exists; California's FEHA interests do not render DFEH a real party in controversy. |
| Intervention as of right | Carauddo has a significant protectable interest and may be inadequately represented by DFEH. | CFEH adequately represents Carauddo; intervention not required. | District court did not err denying intervention as of right; permissive intervention properly limited. |
| Failure to engage in interactive process | Lucent failed to engage in timely, good-faith interactive accommodations. | Carauddo did not raise accommodation requests or participate; employer did engage to extent possible. | No genuine issue of material fact; Lucent did not fail the interactive process under FEHA. |
| Reasonable accommodation | Lucent did not offer a viable reasonable accommodation; ongoing discussion could have yielded a position. | Lucent offered rehabilitation leave and attempted to find a suitable accommodation but none existed. | Lucent did not fail to reasonably accommodate; no triable issue on accommodation. |
| Disability discrimination and pretext | Discrimination based on disability evidenced by inconsistent lifting requirements and pretextual rationales. | Employer demonstrated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons and failure to engage did not prove pretext. | Summary judgment for Lucent affirmed; no triable issue of pretext. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri Ry. Co. v. Hickman, 183 U.S. 53 (1901) (diversity and real party in interest; state interests limited)
- Walden v. Skinner, 101 U.S. 577 (1879) (state presence not defeating diversity where no real interest)
- Ex parte Nebraska, 209 U.S. 436 (1908) (state as party defeats diversity only when real interest in controversy exists)
- Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Phillips, 176 F. 663 (9th Cir. 1910) (real interest includes control over action; government party can be real party)
- U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. United States, 204 U.S. 349 (1907) (government remains real party when aligned with contract interests)
- Patch v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H., 136 F.3d 197 (1st Cir. 1998) (diversity and intervention considerations; government representation factors)
- Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1998) (McDonnell Douglas framework; reliance on pretext in FEHA claims)