Khan v. S & C Electric Company
3:11-cv-03621
N.D. Cal.Sep 14, 2012Background
- Disability discrimination suit by Mohammad Khan against S&C Electric Company in N.D. Cal.; Khan was a Senior Engineer with high-voltage power-supply expertise; work involved testing/analysis on energized circuits up to 220+ volts; Khan went on disability leave Oct 2009 and was terminated Oct 4, 2010 after doctors would not authorize high-voltage work while on narcotic pain meds; S&C argued high-voltage work was an essential function and not safely testable during meds; S&C considered accommodations but never allowed return without high-voltage clearance; Plaintiff filed FEHA/DFEH complaint and later ERISA/Disability claims; court granted summary judgment for Defendant on all FEHA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Khan is a qualified individual under FEHA | Khan could perform non-high-voltage duties; high voltage not essential. | High voltage testing was essential; no reasonable accommodation possible. | Plaintiff not qualified; high voltage essential function. |
| Whether high voltage work is an essential function of Khan’s job | High voltage work may not be essential and could be reassigned. | High voltage testing/analysis is essential to Senior Engineer role. | High voltage work is essential. |
| Whether Defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodation or engage in the interactive process | Employer did not adequately explore accommodations. | No accommodation could enable Khan to perform essential functions. | Claims fail as matter of law. |
| Whether Khan’s retaliation claim is proven by a causal link to protected activity | Timing of DFEH complaint and Labor Department remark show causation. | No evidence that decision-makers knew of complaint; proximity to comment insufficient. | Retaliation claim fails; no causal link shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment shifting burden requires absence of genuine issue of material fact)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (material facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant)
- Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., 90 F.3d 1477 (9th Cir. 1996) (prima facie case and essential functions framework in FEHA-like claims)
- Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Watkins, 642 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2011) (reasonable accommodation not required to restructure essential functions)
- Lockett v. Bayer Healthcare, No. 05-03978, 2008 WL 624847 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (causal knowledge of protected activity is essential to retaliation claim)