114 F. Supp. 3d 1048
E.D. Cal.2015Background
- EEOC sued on behalf of Homeyra Kazerounian (deaf former ARC instructional aide) alleging ADA disability discrimination, ADA retaliation, and constructive discharge; defendant moved for summary judgment.
- Kazerounian worked 2005–2010 as an instructional aide; job required documentation, teaching, attending staff meetings, and communicating with clients. She is deaf and requested ASL interpreters for meetings and trainings.
- ARC sometimes provided interpreters at the Auburn location but provided limited or inadequate services at the Roseville Adult Center; ARC hired an employee (Maas) partly to serve as an interpreter.
- Employer documented recurring performance problems (paperwork, medication log, implementing training, independent work, client communication) and issued write-ups and poor evaluations from 2008–2009. Kazerounian resigned in May 2010 and filed EEOC charge alleging constructive discharge and failure to accommodate.
- District court held a hearing and resolved evidentiary objections; it denied summary judgment as to ADA discrimination and constructive discharge claims (triable issues exist) but granted summary judgment for defendant on the ADA retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kazerounian is a "qualified individual" under the ADA (can perform essential functions with accommodation) | Kazerounian says she met minimum qualifications and coworker declarations show she could perform essential duties with reasonable accommodation (interpreters) | ARC says she could not perform essential functions (repeated performance failures) even with accommodation | Court: Genuine dispute exists; denied summary judgment on qualification (triable issue) |
| Whether providing an ASL interpreter for staff meetings is an undue hardship | Kazerounian: interpreter is a reasonable accommodation and ARC previously used interpreters, so hardship is speculative | ARC: certified interpreters are costly; providing one for all meetings would cause financial/operational hardship | Court: Undue-hardship requires specific proof; ARC’s showing is speculative and undermined by prior use of interpreters — triable issue; summary judgment denied on undue-hardship defense |
| Whether ARC retaliated against Kazerounian for protected activity | Kazerounian: temporal proximity and adverse actions after complaints/DFEH charge show retaliation | ARC: adverse actions were based on legitimate, non-retaliatory performance issues documented before and after complaints | Court: Although temporal proximity exists for some post-complaint actions, ARC presented legitimate non-retaliatory reasons and plaintiff failed to show pretext — summary judgment GRANTED for ARC on retaliation |
| Whether Kazerounian was constructively discharged | Kazerounian: failure to accommodate and ongoing harsher treatment made conditions intolerable, forcing resignation | ARC: actions were performance-based, not discriminatory or intolerable | Court: Evidence could support a jury finding that working conditions were intolerable and tied to failure to accommodate — summary judgment DENIED on constructive discharge |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and view of evidence)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s initial summary judgment burden)
- Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 (definition of "qualified individual" under ADA)
- Braunling v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., 220 F.3d 1154 (accommodation must remedy performance problems to establish qualification)
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (individualized undue-hardship inquiry for accommodations)
- Cripe v. City of San Jose, 261 F.3d 877 (analysis of essential job functions under ADA)
- Boeing Co. v. EEOC, 577 F.3d 1044 (coworker testimony can be probative of pretext)