Lui v. City & County of San Francisco
211 Cal. App. 4th 962
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Kenneth Lui, a San Francisco police officer, suffered a heart attack in 2005 and later retired after being placed on temporary modified duty (TMD).
- DGO 11.12 (2004) limited permanent light-duty and capped TMD at 365 days; upon TMD end, options included full duty, disability accommodation, retirement, or leave.
- EJF List lists essential functions, including strenuous duties like forcible arrests, pursuing suspects, and responding to emergencies, which must be performable even in administrative positions.
- The Department reduced permanent light-duty accommodations after DGO 11.12; plaintiff sought an administrative role but was restricted by medical restrictions.
- Trial court found the EJF List duties are essential for administrative positions to enable mass mobilization; Lui could not perform these duties, so FEHA claims failed; judgment in favor of defendant affirmed on appeal.
- Evidence showed the Department must mobilize many officers during emergencies (e.g., protests, earthquakes, mass events), and administrative officers are expected to carry out core duties when deployed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are EJF List duties essential functions of the administrative positions Lui seeks? | Lui contends EJFList duties are not essential for admin roles. | SF Department argues EJF List duties are essential for admin positions. | Yes; duties are essential functions for admin roles. |
| Did Lui prove he could perform essential functions with accommodation? | Lui disabled; argues accommodation could suffice. | Department bears burden to show he is not a qualified individual. | No; substantial evidence shows Lui could not perform essential functions even with accommodation. |
| Is mass mobilization need a legitimate basis to deem functions essential? | Discretionary judgment not sufficient to label functions essential. | Mass mobilization needs justify essential functions for dept readiness. | Yes; evidence supports need to mobilize full-duty officers including admin staff. |
| Was the interactive process properly engaged? | FEHA requires good-faith interactive process to determine reasonable accommodation. | Court need not decide due to other upheld grounds; process arguments insufficient to prevail. | Not necessary to resolve given other dispositive findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cripe v. City of San Jose, 261 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001) (distinguishable facts on essential functions in modified-duty context)
- Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles, 194 Cal.App.4th 757 (2d Dist. 2011) (limits on permanent light-duty; essential functions depend on assignment type)
- Stone v. City of Mount Vernon, 118 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 1997) (essential functions in administrative positions; mobilization context considered)
- Champ v. Baltimore County, 884 F.Supp. 991 (D.Md. 1995) (essential functions for disabled officer in admin-like role with mass-care requirements)
- Kees v. Wallenstein, 161 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 1998) (inmate contact as essential function even in non-frontline duties)