Background - Dunlap worked as a shipping clerk for Liberty (2006–2012). She developed bilateral lateral epicondylitis, filed a workers’ compensation claim, and the claim was later closed as disabling. - One month after the claim closure, Liberty terminated Dunlap. She immediately requested reinstatement or another suitable position; Liberty declined. - Dunlap sued under the ADA and related Oregon statutes for disability discrimination, "regarded as" disability, and failure to reinstate/reemploy; most other claims were dismissed on summary judgment. - A jury found for Dunlap on her disability-discrimination claim, awarding $70,000 non-economic damages; the district court added $13,200 in backpay. The jury found for Liberty on the "regarded as" and reinstatement claims. - Liberty’s renewed Rule 50(b) motion for JMOL was denied; Liberty appealed the jury instructions and the JMOL denial. Dunlap sought $235,038 in attorney’s fees; the district court reduced the award by 50%; Dunlap appealed the fee reduction. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Jury instruction conflating failure-to-accommodate and disparate-treatment elements | Dunlap argued Liberty failed to preserve an objection; alternatively, any error was harmless because Liberty had notice of limitations | Liberty argued the conflated instruction misstated law and deprived the jury of deciding whether Dunlap triggered a duty to accommodate | Court: Instruction was a misstatement but harmless because Liberty had notice of Dunlap’s limitations and duty to engage was triggered | | Denial of renewed JMOL (whether reasonable accommodation existed) | Dunlap argued she proved reasonable accommodations (onsite carts, scissor-lift table) and Liberty refused to engage or provide them | Liberty contended Dunlap failed to prove a reasonable accommodation that would enable performance of essential functions | Court: Evidence construed for Dunlap was sufficient; reasonable accommodations existed and employer had notice; JMOL denial affirmed | | Attorney’s fees reduction (50%) | Dunlap argued the reduction was an abuse of discretion and Hensley limits such reductions | Liberty (and district court) argued Dunlap had limited success (won essentially 1 of 5 claims) so reduction appropriate | Court: District court provided concise reasons; reduction within discretion and proper consideration of degree of success; affirmed | ### Key Cases Cited Chess v. Dovey, 790 F.3d 961 (9th Cir.) (de novo review of legal instruction errors) Estate of Diaz v. City of Anaheim, 840 F.3d 592 (9th Cir.) (standard for reviewing Rule 50(b) JMOL) Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir.) (jury verdicts upheld if supported by substantial evidence) Johnson v. Bd. of Trustees of Boundary Cty. Sch. Dist., 666 F.3d 561 (9th Cir.) (failure-to-accommodate distinct from disparate-treatment) Humphrey v. Memorial Hosp. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir.) (employer’s duty to engage in interactive process once aware) Mendoza v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, 824 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir.) (ADA includes failure to make reasonable accommodation) Mark H. v. Hamamoto, 620 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir.) (reasonableness of accommodations requires individualized, fact-specific analysis) Clem v. Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir.) (harmless-error standard for civil jury instructions) Chaudhry v. Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review of fee calculations and need for concise explanation) Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S.) (district courts may reduce fee awards based on degree of success)