Tuens v. U.S. Bank National Association CA1/4, A169335

Tracy Tuens was hired as a Senior Wealth Strategist/Director by U.S. Bank’s Ascent division, responsible for acquiring high-net-worth clients.
Before her hire, Tuens submitted a business plan projecting acquisition of six new clients in her first year.
In December 2016, Tuens suffered a serious illness and took medical leave until March 2017, returning with medical clearance.
Upon her return, Tuens struggled to meet her job’s demanding client acquisition targets, and was placed on a formal Action Plan with deadlines tied to sourcing and closing sales.
Tuens claimed the Action Plan failed to reasonably accommodate the impact of her leave/disability, and sought further deadline extensions as accommodation; the Bank granted extensions, but ultimately terminated her for not meeting targets.
She sued for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). After a bench trial, judgment was entered for the Bank on all claims. Tuens appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disability accommodation under FEHA	Bank failed to reasonably accommodate her disability, as the Action Plan (target dates) was inflexible and punitive after medical leave	Provided accommodations by extending deadlines; expectations were reasonable for the role and relied on her initial business plan	Extensions granted were reasonable accommodations given her position and circumstances
Failure to engage in interactive process	Bank did not sufficiently explore other accommodations or truly consider her requests	Engaged with Tuens over time, adjusting performance plans in response to her feedback	No failure; Bank engaged in a sufficient interactive process; Tuens didn't clearly identify other reasonable accommodations
Disability discrimination	Termination was motivated by her disability and retaliation for medical leave	Terminated for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons—failure to meet essential job duties even with accommodations	No discrimination; performance-based reason for termination was not pretextual
Essential job functions and ability to perform	Lost business opportunities because of medical leave; impact should be considered on performance metrics	Role required generating new business within specified timeframes, as reflected in original business plan	Tuens did not show she could perform essential duties even with accommodations

Moore v. Regents of University of California, 248 Cal.App.4th 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (discusses the scope of FEHA protections and reasonable accommodations)
Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc., 53 Cal.App.4th 935 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (determining reasonableness of accommodations is a fact question for the trial court)
Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, 234 Cal.App.4th 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (clarified the interactive process and proof of available accommodation)
Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (applies McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting in workplace discrimination claims)
Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc., 188 Cal.App.4th 297 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (recites disability discrimination elements under FEHA)