Vallejo v. Union Pacific Railroad Company CA4/1, D085024

Joe J. Vallejo, Sr., a carman welder for Union Pacific Railroad, was involved in a workplace accident on December 22, 2020, in which he wrecked a company vehicle and failed to report the incident as required by company policy.
Shortly after the incident, Vallejo was hospitalized with severe COVID-19 complications, including pneumonia and hypoxia, which lasted approximately two weeks.
Union Pacific initiated a disciplinary process for Vallejo's failure to report the incident, ultimately terminating his employment after a delayed hearing.
Vallejo filed suit alleging violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), specifically for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in an interactive process.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Union Pacific. Vallejo appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Wrongful Termination/Disability Discrimination	Vallejo was terminated due to his disability (COVID-related cognitive impairment), which caused the accident and failure to report.	Vallejo was terminated for misconduct (failing to report the accident), not because of disability.	Triable issue of fact exists; summary judgment reversed on this claim.
Failure to Accommodate	Vallejo argued Union Pacific should have excused his conduct as a disability-related accommodation.	No duty to excuse past misconduct as an accommodation; only prospective adjustments are required.	No FEHA violation for not granting retrospective accommodation; judgment affirmed.
Failure to Engage in Interactive Process	Vallejo claimed Union Pacific should have discussed accommodations in light of his disability.	No reasonable accommodation was possible; thus, no process required.	No violation because no available accommodation was identified; judgment affirmed.
Duty to Investigate Disability	Union Pacific should have consulted a medical professional to understand Vallejo’s condition.	No obligation to seek medical consultation prior to termination decision.	No legal requirement to consult experts in this context; not a basis for liability.

Arteaga v. Brink's, Inc., 163 Cal.App.4th 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (explains that FEHA only guards against discrimination, not all adverse treatment)
Brundage v. Hahn, 57 Cal.App.4th 228 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (employer must know of disability to be liable for discrimination)
Zamora v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc., 71 Cal.App.5th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (lays out FEHA discrimination prima facie and McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting)
DeJung v. Superior Court, 169 Cal.App.4th 533 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (distinguishes direct evidence of discrimination from circumstantial)
Wallace v. County of Stanislaus, 245 Cal.App.4th 109 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (when direct evidence is present, McDonnell Douglas framework doesn't apply)