Nealy v. City of Santa Monica
234 Cal. App. 4th 359
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Tony Nealy, a City of Santa Monica solid waste employee, injured his right knee in 2003 and had subsequent surgeries and work restrictions through 2010.
- The City held multiple accommodations-committee meetings (2005, 2006, 2008, 2010) reviewing essential functions analyses (EFJAs) and medical restrictions from physicians (Dr. Harris; agreed medical examiner Dr. Silverman).
- Dr. Silverman (2010) limited kneeling, bending, squatting, climbing, prolonged standing/walking, and heavy lifting; opined Nealy could drive modified automated trucks but not perform other physical tasks.
- The City concluded Nealy could not perform essential functions of solid waste equipment operator (e.g., heavy lifting, equipment inspection/maintenance, climbing/stooping) even with accommodation and sought reassignment; only one non-promotional vacancy existed which Nealy lacked qualifications for.
- CalPERS disability retirement application was submitted by City in 2010; Nealy filed a DFEH complaint (Jan 19, 2011) and then sued in state court alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in interactive process, and retaliation; trial court granted City summary judgment and appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations / continuing violation | Nealy argued the City’s failures from Aug 2006–2010 were part of a continuing violation tolling the 1-year DFEH filing period | City argued conduct prior to Jan 19, 2010 is time-barred; no showing of continuing violation elements | Court: statutes bar pre-Jan 19, 2010 claims; Nealy failed to show continuing-violation elements, so no error in limiting claims |
| Failure to reasonably accommodate | Nealy argued job restructuring (assign him to automated side-loader, eliminate lifting/kneeling) or reassignment would have enabled him to perform the job | City argued essential functions (heavy lifting, inspections, vehicle entry/climb) could not be eliminated; accommodations Nealy sought would remove essential functions; no vacant qualified positions existed | Court: elimination of essential functions is not reasonable; Nealy could not perform essential functions even with accommodation and had no qualified vacant positions — summary judgment proper |
| Disability discrimination | Nealy contended he was a qualified individual who was effectively terminated due to disability | City contended Nealy was not a qualified individual because he could not perform essential duties with or without reasonable accommodation | Court: same standard as accommodation claim; City proved Nealy could not perform essential functions — discrimination claim fails |
| Failure to engage in interactive process | Nealy argued City failed to continue interactive discussions and propose accommodations/retraining | City showed it convened committee, considered restrictions, reviewed vacancies, and proposed options; no known reasonable accommodation existed | Court: plaintiff must identify a specific reasonable accommodation available at the time; Nealy did not — summary judgment affirmed |
| Retaliation | Nealy asserted his requests for accommodation/participation in interactive process constituted protected activity | City argued mere requests for accommodation are not protected activity under FEHA | Court: requesting accommodation/interactive process alone is not protected activity for retaliation claim — claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (summary judgment burden-shifting standard)
- Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, 25 Cal.4th 763 (de novo review on appeal from summary judgment)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (appellate standard and burden allocation)
- Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 798 (continuing violation doctrine elements)
- Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 166 Cal.App.4th 952 (definition/requirements of reasonable accommodation)
- Wilson v. County of Orange, 169 Cal.App.4th 1185 (elements of accommodation claim; interactive process)
- Raine v. City of Burbank, 135 Cal.App.4th 1215 (use of ADA precedent in FEHA accommodation analysis)
- Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California, 157 Cal.App.4th 413 (interactive process duty)
- Rope v. Auto-Chlor Sys. of Washington, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 635 (requesting accommodation alone is not protected activity for retaliation)
- Spitzer v. Good Guys, Inc., 80 Cal.App.4th 1376 (reassignment duties and limits on creating/promoting positions as accommodation)