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
Failure to Accommodate
Age and Disability Discrimination

Daniel Millar v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

Published: Dec. 16, 2003 | Result Date: Oct. 16, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 8300139 Verdict –  $375,000

Judge

George C. Hernandez Jr.

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

William J. Trinkle
(Young, Minney & Corr LLP)

Jordan J. Yudien


Defendant

Thomas C. Lee

Ruth M. Chow


Facts

The plaintiff had been a mechanical worker at San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District for 10 years. He had a hearing impairment when he was hired and for which he wore a hearing aid. In June 1998, the plaintiff went on sick leave for stress. While on sick leave, he was informed that he would not be permitted to return to work until he passed a fitness-for-duty evaluation, including testing of his hearing. According to the defendant, BART relied on the opinions of a medical doctor and concluded that the plaintiff could not return to work. BART offered no accommodation to the plaintiff to permit him to keep his mechanic job, claiming that there was no accommodation it could make. The plaintiff was never offered any alternate position in an effort to accommodate his disability.

Result

The jury found that BART had committed unlawful disability discrimination and that it had failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff's hearing disability and awarded the plaintiff $375,000 loss of compensation, benefits and prejudgment interest. The jury awarded plaintiff no emotional distress damages. Defense on age discrimination and workplace harassment claims. The plaintiff entitled to costs ($86,000 costs memo) and attorney fees per statute.

Deliberation

seven hours

Poll

12-0 (age discrimination), 11-1 (disability discrimination), 9-3 (failure to accommodate), 12-0 (harassment)

Length

18 days


#123008

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

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