59 Cal.App.5th 82
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff Anahit Shirvanyan worked as a kitchen assistant for Los Angeles Community College District; her essential duties involved repetitive hand use and lifting up to ~50 pounds.
- She suffered carpal tunnel/wrist problems diagnosed in 2014 and repeatedly requested accommodations (help with heavy tasks, electric can opener, assistance when dishwasher broke); supervisors denied requests and did not engage in meaningful duty modification.
- On December 18, 2015 she sustained a separate shoulder injury opening an industrial dishwasher, provided a medical leave note through March 7, 2016, and subsequently stopped working; later diagnostics revealed a torn rotator cuff and ongoing treatment.
- Shirvanyan sued under FEHA for failure to provide reasonable accommodations and failure to engage in the interactive process (seeking emotional distress and lost wages tied to depression); the trial court instructed the jury without requiring proof that a reasonable accommodation was available and the jury returned a large verdict for Shirvanyan on the accommodation and interactive-process claims.
- On appeal the court held that proving an available reasonable accommodation is an element of an interactive-process claim; the record supported availability only for accommodation of the wrist injury (finite leave), not the shoulder injury; because the verdict was ambiguous as to which injury the jury relied on, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial limited to FEHA claims based on the wrist condition; the court also held workers’ compensation exclusivity did not bar the retrial and reversed the attorney-fees award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether availability of a reasonable accommodation is an element of a §12940(n) interactive-process claim | Shirvanyan: no; FEHA §12940(n) does not require proof that an accommodation was actually available at the time | District: yes; an interactive-process claim requires that an accommodation that would have been available exist, otherwise the process would have been futile | Court: Availability is an element; plaintiff must identify an available reasonable accommodation (adopting Scotch/Nadaf‑Rahrov reasoning) |
| Whether substantial evidence supported availability of reasonable accommodations for wrist and shoulder injuries | Shirvanyan: evidence of denied requests and potential accommodations (reassignment, restructuring, finite leave) supports liability for both injuries | District: only wrist accommodation (finite leave) was plausibly available; shoulder injury required long-term treatment and no evidence showed a reasonable accommodation was available | Court: Substantial evidence supports availability only for wrist (finite leave); no substantial evidence supports reasonable accommodation for shoulder injury |
| Whether the jury verdict could stand given the mixed-evidence record on the two injuries | Shirvanyan: verdict should stand or retrial limited to damages | District: verdict is unsupported as to shoulder and ambiguous as to which injury the jury relied on; requires reversal/remand | Court: Verdict ambiguous and cannot determine whether jury relied on wrist, shoulder, or both; reversed and remanded for a new trial limited to claims based on the wrist injury |
| Whether Workers’ Compensation Act exclusivity bars FEHA claims retried for wrist-related treatment/refusal | Shirvanyan: WCA does not bar FEHA claims because her harms are distinct (treatment of disability by employer) | District: WCA exclusivity bars recovery for depressive disorder or harms derived from workplace injury | Court: WCA exclusivity does not bar the FEHA claims retried (claims seek remedy for employer conduct and denied accommodations, not compensation for the underlying workplace injury) |
Key Cases Cited
- Scotch v. Art Inst. of Cal., 173 Cal.App.4th 986 (Cal. Ct. App.) (interactive-process liability requires identification of an available accommodation)
- Nadaf‑Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 166 Cal.App.4th 952 (Cal. Ct. App.) (reasonable accommodation concept and relation to interactive process)
- Wysinger v. Automobile Club of So. Cal., 157 Cal.App.4th 413 (Cal. Ct. App.) (cases on interactive process proof burden discussed/synthesized)
- Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 74 Cal.App.4th 215 (Cal. Ct. App.) (finite medical leave can be a reasonable accommodation)
- City of Moorpark v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.4th 1143 (Cal.) (FEHA discrimination claims may lie outside workers' compensation exclusivity)
- Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 24 Cal.4th 800 (Cal.) (workers' compensation exclusivity and the "compensation bargain")
- Sea‑Land Serv., Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 14 Cal.4th 76 (Cal.) (single recovery principle for compensable workplace injuries)