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
ADA
Wrongful Termination

Joseph Snead v. Chino Valley Unified School District

Published: Jul. 3, 2015 | Result Date: Jun. 17, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CIVRS1101184 Verdict –  $550,000

Court

San Bernardino Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Tamara S. Freeze
(Workplace Justice Advocates PLC)

Robert A. Odell
(Workplace Justice Advocates PLC)


Defendant

Michael J. Marlatt
(Thompson & Colegate LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff Joseph Snead worked as a custodian for Chino Valley Unified School District for 16 years at an elementary school. In 2010, he sustained a back injury, which prevented him from working on ladders.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed that the use of ladders was very rare and even then, he could have done his work with accommodations, using extension poles, change of schedules and reassignment of duties. Plaintiff also claimed that his proposed accommodations would not have caused undue burden on the district.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The school district claimed that the use of ladders was an essential function of the job of all custodians and terminated plaintiff. The district also claimed that plaintiff's proposed accommodations would have created an undue burden on the district.

Settlement Discussions

The school district made a $20,000 pretrial offer. According to defense, the school district would have gone higher but there were no further settlement discussions.

Result

Verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $550,000, on all causes of action for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and failure to engage in an interactive process.

Other Information

According to defense, the initial jury poll was 8-4 defense, but then after further deliberations 9-3 plaintiff. FILING DATE: Feb. 2, 2011.

Deliberation

one day

Poll

9-3 on all causes of action/damages

Length

10 days


#115603

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

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