Jackson Lewis: California Appeals Court Rules Accommodation Does Not Require Redefining Essential Functions | Practical Law

Jackson Lewis: California Appeals Court Rules Accommodation Does Not Require Redefining Essential Functions | Practical Law

This California Law Firm Publication by Jackson Lewis P.C. discusses Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, in which the California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of the city on an employee's claims that included disability discrimination and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. The employee, who suffered on-the-job injuries, was allowed time off for his disability, was accommodated with light duty and was transferred to positions for which he could perform the essential functions. As his physical condition deteriorated, the company had no available positions for which he minimally qualified. He filed a lawsuit and the district court granted the city's summary judgment motion. The appeals court affirmed, noting that in an effort to reasonably accommodate an employee's disability, an employer does not have to redefine essential requirements of a position. In addition, if there is no vacant position, an employer is not obligated to reassign an employee or provide indefinite leave while the individual waits for a position to open.

Jackson Lewis: California Appeals Court Rules Accommodation Does Not Require Redefining Essential Functions

by Jackson Lewis P.C.
Published on 26 Feb 2015California, United States
This California Law Firm Publication by Jackson Lewis P.C. discusses Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, in which the California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of the city on an employee's claims that included disability discrimination and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. The employee, who suffered on-the-job injuries, was allowed time off for his disability, was accommodated with light duty and was transferred to positions for which he could perform the essential functions. As his physical condition deteriorated, the company had no available positions for which he minimally qualified. He filed a lawsuit and the district court granted the city's summary judgment motion. The appeals court affirmed, noting that in an effort to reasonably accommodate an employee's disability, an employer does not have to redefine essential requirements of a position. In addition, if there is no vacant position, an employer is not obligated to reassign an employee or provide indefinite leave while the individual waits for a position to open.