Facts

Charles Ciorlieri, a former painter, sued the District claiming that he was discriminated against due to his disability from job-related injuries resulting in knee replacement surgeries for both knees and a spinal fusion.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff claimed that the District failed to accommodate his restrictions (e.g., no lifting more than 20 lbs, no bending, no stooping). However, after District employees reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records on multiple occasions and engaged in the interactive process, it was determined that Plaintiff could not perform 4 of the 5 essential functions of his job as a painter. Plaintiff then resigned/retired and filed suit.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: After taking plaintiff’s deposition and discovery by the parties, the district filed its motion for summary judgment. The district claimed it didn't discriminate against plaintiff in any way and engaged in the interactive process in good faith. Defense argued that plaintiff had no change in circumstances that would have required subsequent meetings due to his restrictions being permanent. The district employees still reviewed the updated medical information provided by plaintiff even after the interactive process meeting to determine whether plaintiff's condition had improved enough to allow him to return to work.

The district also argued that it had legitimate business reasons for not allowing plaintiff back to work because he allegedly would be a danger to himself and other employees.

Result

The court granted the district’s summary judgment motion in its entirety, finding that plaintiff could not establish the elements for the causes of action in his complaint because plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of his job and the district did engage in the interactive process. The court also found that the district did participate in the interactive process.