137 F. Supp. 3d 1204
E.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiff Trevor Weeks is a long‑time Union Pacific locomotive engineer who developed chronic lung problems after a 2001 chlorine inhalation injury; his condition aggravates with fumes/dust in locomotive cabs.
- Weeks sought transfers and other accommodations (notably a July 2012 request to transfer to Sparks, NV with seniority) and applied for numerous positions; the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) denied the Sparks transfer with seniority. Union Pacific asserts transfers with seniority require BLE approval under the CBA/RHIA.
- Weeks requested intermittent medical leave (approved July 2013) and filed an EEOC charge in July 2013; Union Pacific issued various attendance notices/investigations (one in Dec. 2013, a Notice of Discipline dated March 2015). Many prior investigations were dismissed and Weeks suffered no loss of pay or seniority before March 2015.
- Procedural posture: Union Pacific moved for summary judgment on ADA, multiple FEHA claims, CFRA retaliation, Labor Code § 923, and punitive damages. Weeks conceded some claims; the court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part.
- The court narrowed the trialable claims to: ADA failure‑to‑accommodate (post‑Sept. 2012), FEHA §12940(m) failure‑to‑accommodate (post‑July 2012), and FEHA §12940(n) failure to engage in the interactive process (post‑July 2012). Other claims (FEHA retaliation, Labor Code §923, punitive damages, claims based on Sparks transfer with seniority) were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Sparks transfer (July–Dec 2012) and related conduct within limitations constituted ADA/FEHA adverse action or failure to accommodate | Weeks: BLE denial and Union Pacific inaction deprived him of a reasonable accommodation; UP failed to ask BLE to accept seniority transfer or pursue alternative accommodations | UP: BLE—not UP—denied transfer; unilateral transfer with seniority would violate CBA/RHIA and is presumptively unreasonable under U.S. Airways; conduct pre‑limitations mostly time‑barred | Transfer to Sparks with seniority not actionable against UP; summary judgment for UP on claims based on that transfer (time/labor agreement limits) |
| Whether attendance notices/investigations (Dec 2013) and March 2015 Notice of Discipline are adverse employment actions supporting discrimination/retaliation claims | Weeks: Notices remained in permanent file, triggered risk lists and targeted scrutiny; notices issued after leave requests show retaliation/interference | UP: December investigation was canceled and produced no discipline or loss of pay/seniority; Weeks produced no policies showing notices are disciplinary; March 2015 NOD postdates complaint and lacks demonstrated adverse effect | Dec. 2013 investigation not an adverse action—summary judgment for UP; March 2015 NOD not considered now (new theory), amendment/more facts required to proceed |
| Whether UP failed to engage in the interactive process or otherwise reasonably accommodate under ADA/FEHA (post‑limitations period) | Weeks: He requested accommodations (transfer, modified schedule, non‑locomotive job); UP did not meaningfully participate or explore alternatives; Mojave transfer was ineffective | UP: Weeks did not complete Intracraft Transfer forms and could perform essential job functions; Mojave transfer was an accommodation; BLE constraints limit reasonable options | Court found material disputes: UP did not show no reasonable accommodation existed and did not engage in an adequate interactive process—summary judgment DENIED as to failure‑to‑accommodate (ADA & FEHA §12940(m)) and FEHA §12940(n) interactive process claims (post‑limitation window) |
| Whether continuing‑violation doctrine saves pre‑limitation FEHA claims (pre‑July 2012 conduct) | Weeks: Repeated denials and failure to assist constitute an ongoing course of conduct | UP: Earlier denials (2005–2008) are dissimilar, temporally remote, and show permanence; doctrine not met | Court: Continuing‑violation doctrine not satisfied; FEHA claims based on pre‑July 2012 conduct are time‑barred—summary judgment granted on those claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1970) (summary judgment standard explained)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (initial summary judgment burdens)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute/admissible evidence standard)
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (U.S. 2002) (seniority systems and presumptively unreasonable accommodations)
- EEOC v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, 620 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2010) (interactive process and accommodation principles)
- Dark v. Curry County, 451 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2006) (employer burden when it failed to engage in interactive process)
- Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000) (definition and requirements of interactive process)