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
Failure to Reasonably Accommodate

Alejandro Gonzalez v. Swissport SA LLC; Swissport USA Inc; Swissport Cargo Services LP; Janet Tatum, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

Published: May 8, 2020 | Result Date: Feb. 10, 2020 | Filing Date: Dec. 1, 2017 |

Case number: BC685391 Verdict –  $1,050,000

Judge

Rupert A. Byrdsong

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Khail A. Parris
(Parris Law Firm)

Jason P. Fowler
(Parris Law Firm)

Twila S. White
(Law Office of Twila S. White)


Defendant

Jose-Manuel A. De Castro
(De Castro Law Group PC)


Facts

Plaintiff Alejandro Gonzalez worked as a flight coordinator/supervisor of baggage handlers at Swissport's LAX operations. After suffering from an aortic aneurysm at work, Plaintiff was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery. Plaintiff took four months off from work to recover from the surgery and eventually was released back to work with a 15-pound weight restriction. Upon his return to work, Plaintiff claimed that Swissport terminated his employment due to his disability. Swissport claimed that Plaintiff resigned upon returning to work.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that when Defendant learned of this restriction, the company terminated him without attempting to reasonably accommodate his restrictions. Plaintiff also claimed that Defendant failed to engage in the interactive process and further failed to reasonably prevent discrimination against him.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that Plaintiff was never terminated from his position and that instead, he quit. Defendant also contended that it could not reasonably accommodate his restriction.

Result

The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff and awarded him $1,050,000 in damages which comprised of $250,000 in past non-economic damages and $800,000 in future non-economic damages.

Other Information

The court granted Defendant's motion for a new trial on damages, setting aside the jury's verdict as to damages.

Deliberation

5 hours

Poll

9-3

Length

6 days


#134385

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

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