Luke Romero v. County of Santa Clara
666 F. App'x 609
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Dr. Luke Romero, a physician at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC), sued for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and wrongful termination; district court granted summary judgment on some claims and a jury found for defendants on the remainder.
- Romero repeatedly insisted his only requested accommodation was additional medical leave of unspecified duration; he resisted the hospital’s efforts to engage in the reasonable-accommodation process.
- Romero had already received three leave extensions; treating/independent physicians expressed doubt that additional, indefinite leave would permit a return to work.
- SCVMC terminated Romero after setting conditions in a September 18 letter; some complaints by Romero (to ACGME, DFEH) were anonymous or not known to SCVMC at relevant times.
- The district court excluded testimony from three witnesses about their own retaliation/discrimination experiences under Rule 403; the jury verdict found peer reviews were not retaliatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interactive-process/failure-to-accommodate claim survives summary judgment | Romero argued SCVMC failed to engage in the interactive process and would not accommodate his disability beyond leave | SCVMC argued Romero refused to participate and sought only indefinite leave, which is unreasonable | Court: Affirmed summary judgment—Romero bore responsibility for breakdown; indefinite additional leave was not a reasonable accommodation |
| Whether Romero was a "qualified individual" under the ADA at discharge | Romero argued he was qualified with accommodation (additional leave) | SCVMC argued he could not perform essential job functions and indefinite leave did not render him qualified | Court: Not qualified; cannot establish discrimination or failure-to-accommodate claims |
| Whether termination/peer-review actions were retaliatory (causation) | Romero pointed to temporal proximity and complaints to ACGME and DFEH as causal | SCVMC argued complaints were anonymous/not known and peer reviews were not final adverse actions | Court: No causal link—anonymous/unknown complaints insufficient; jury’s finding that peer reviews were not retaliatory is preclusive; summary judgment on termination-based retaliation upheld |
| Whether district court abused discretion excluding other witnesses' testimony under Rule 403 | Romero contended testimony about others’ experiences showed pattern/hostility | SCVMC argued the testimony had limited probative value and risked unfair prejudice/confusion | Court: No abuse—Rule 403 exclusion reasonable because testimony did not show hostility toward a clearly defined protected group |
Key Cases Cited
- Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.) (employer/employee interactive-process allocation of responsibility)
- Dark v. Curry County, 451 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.) (indefinite recovery leave may be unreasonable accommodation)
- Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc., 795 F.3d 941 (9th Cir.) (definition of qualified individual under ADA)
- Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267 (9th Cir.) (ADA prima facie framework)
- Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 675 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir.) (failure-to-accommodate elements)
- Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir.) (employer knowledge requirement for retaliation)
- Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840 (9th Cir.) (causation for retaliation)
- Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir.) (what constitutes adverse employment action)
- Porter v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 419 F.3d 885 (9th Cir.) (ongoing pattern of retaliation analysis)
- Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Gen. Circuit Breaker & Elec. Supply Inc., 106 F.3d 894 (9th Cir.) (preclusive effect of prior findings)
- United States v. Torres, 794 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.) (standard for reviewing district court evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir.) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings must be logical and supported)
- Beachy v. Boise Cascade Corp., 191 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir.) (limit on using other-employee evidence absent defined protected group)