This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Disability Discrimination

Lee v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation

Published: May 13, 2006 | Result Date: Dec. 27, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: HG04138435 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Roy K. Powlan


Defendant

Frank L. Kollman

Michelle Q Carter


Experts

Plaintiff

Martin Shaffer
(medical)

Robert Cottle
(technical)

Defendant

Lawrence J. Deneen J.D.
(technical)

Charles Casella
(medical)

Margo Rich Ogus Ph.D.
(technical)

Facts

In 2001, Dickey O'Dell Lee was riding his motorcycle on an interstate ramp in Oregon when the motorcycle skidded out, causing severe injuries to the left side of his body. Lee, who was an elevator installer, was unable to perform his job because it required extensive, heavy lifting. Lee sued his employer, Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation, alleging disability discrimination, failure of the interactive process and failure to accommodate under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
although the plaintiff was unable to perform as an elevator installer, he claimed he could work as a service mechanic because it did not involve heavy lifting. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant should have placed him in such a position.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
the plaintiff was not qualified to be employed as a service mechanic because that position required climbing ladders and working on elevator cars; tasks that would require arm strength that the plaintiff lacked. The plaintiff's expert opined that he could not climb ladders safely and would likely be unable to use his arms to support his body weight should he be placed in a situation requiring him to do so. As a result, an accommodation would not be warranted because Section 12940(a)(1) of the FEHA protects an employer who decides to discharge an employee who cannot perform the requirements of his position in a safe manner. The defendant also claimed it attempted to keep the channels of communication open with the plaintiff, but to no avail.

Damages

Per defense counsel, plaintiff sought damages in excess of $4 million, including back pay, front pay, emotional distress and punitive damages.

Injuries

The plaintiff's injuries consisted of a severed left rotator cuff, reduced strength in his left arm and emotional distress.

Result

Defense verdict.


#100651

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390