Facts

Plaintiff Tanya Milan, age 49, suffered an on-the-job cervical neck injury in September 2002. She underwent surgery by Dr. Calvin in October 2002. In June 2003, she was evaluated by a workers' compensation doctor, who indicated that he did not believe she could return to work.

On Mar. 30, 2004, the plaintiff received a notice of termination from employment from the defendant, city of Holtville. In March 2005, the plaintiff filed a disability discrimination case under FEHA alleging she was terminated as a result of her disability. At the same time, Dr. Travis Calvin sent correspondence indicating that he believed the plaintiff could return to her previous employment as a water plant treatment operator for the city of Holtville with certain accommodations. The city of Holtville never responded to Dr. Calvin's correspondence because the plaintiff's position had already been filled by that time. Dr. Calvin again evaluated the plaintiff in the summer of 2004 and indicated that he believed the plaintiff could return to work at that time.

The plaintiff's expert witness, Lawrence Ball, testified that the city was under a duty to meet and confer with plaintiff and/or her physician, Dr. Calvin, and engage in an interactive process to determine whether reasonable accommodations could be made in order for her to return to her employment as a water plant treatment operator. The city of Holtville took the position that because of the fact that the plaintiff never requested an accommodation after her termination Mar. 30, 2004, they were under no duty to engage in the interactive process. The contention was rejected by the court in a motion for dismissal at trial on the grounds that the city was already aware of the plaintiff's disability and therefore it was incumbent upon the city to engage in the interactive process even absent a request by the plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTION: The plaintiff contended that the defendant failed to reasonably accommodate her disability under Government Code section 12940(m) and failed to engage in an interactive process to determine whether reasonable accommodations could be accomplished under Government Code section 12940(n).

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that they were under no obligation to engage in the interactive process because of plaintiff's failure to request an accommodation when she received the notice of termination on Mar. 30, 2004. Moreover, defendant contended that there were no reasonable accommodations available because of the nature and extent of the plaintiff's disabilities. They would have to eliminate her position or eliminate the essential job functions of her position as a water plaint treatment operator in order to accommodate her disabilities.

Result

Verdict of $142, 411 for the plaintiff, including economic and non-economic damages. The court denied the plaintiff's request for reinstatement on the grounds that the delay in bringing this action and having it resolved at time of trial would result in the dismissal of another employee who had been hired to replace the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed a memorandum of costs for $11,377 and has also filed a motion for attorney fees under the FEHA statutory attorney fee section for $62,912, requesting multiplier of two to the lodestar figure.

Other Information

FILING DATE: March 29, 2005.