Facts

Leticia Avila began working for the City and County of San Francisco, Human Services Agency (HSA) as a Senior Eligibility worker in the Cal-Fresh department on September 29, 2014. She was offered a new position in the newly formed Outreach unit on March 2015. However, she injured her back when moving her office to San Francisco General Hospital, where the new outreach program was located. She experienced pain in her lower spine, radiating down through her sciatic nerve into her left leg and foot. She saw several medical providers and physical therapist, and received acupuncture before undergoing multiple spinal surgeries to alleviate her pain. Only a week after the move, management informed her that she needed to move everything back to her prior office, exasperating her back injury. In February 2016, management required her to move to another office yet again. In March 2017, Avila's doctor recommended that she telecommute four days per week to accommodate her spinal injuries. At the time, HSA had in place two telecommute units where workers with Avila's same job and title performed the same duties from home. She provided HSA with the necessary paperwork for a reasonable accommodation to work from home but did not hear back from them for three months. On May 1, 2017, she was informed that she would be moved to a different site, 1235 Mission, where she would perform a role that required only phone interaction with clients. At the time, Avila was using a cane and could not easily access her new location at 1235 Mission. She contacted her manager and informed her that moving would cause her more difficulty and increase her physical strain. However, her manager informed her that the move was intended to accommodate her condition. Her request to telecommute was denied on June 2, 2017. Avila had spine surgery on August 9, 2017, and returned to work on October 17, 2017. Her supervisor began giving her more assignments and removed many of her co-workers from her location. She reapplied for a medical accommodation on the basis of interactions with HSA staff but was told by HSA management that she was not qualified for the position. On September 12, 2018, as an alternative to returning to work, she was offered a clerk position based in an office that did not have the ability to telecommute. She declined the clerk position because it could not accommodate her disability. On April 11, 2018, she received a letter stating that it was HSA's intent to end the employment based on medical separation.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that she suffered from a disability as a result of her spinal injury and that defendant knew she was disabled or perceived her as having a history of that disability. Further, plaintiff alleged that she was qualified to perform the essential job duties with or without reasonable accommodation for her spinal injury. Moreover, plaintiff argued that defendants terminated her because of her disability in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Plaintiff argued that she informed defendant of her need for a reasonable accommodation for her disability and that defendants failed to reasonably accommodate her or engage in the interactive process as required by law. Plaintiff also alleges that she was eligible for leave under the California Family Rights Act when she was employed by defendants but that defendants terminated her to effectively prevent her from taking additional leave. Finally, plaintiff argued that as a direct and proximate result of these violations, she continued to suffer economic and non-economic damages.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied each and every allegation in the complaint and denied that plaintiff was injured or suffered any damages or was entitled to the relief requested in the complaint. Further, defendants maintained that all of the claims in the complaint were barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver, unclean hands, laches, estoppel, and the statute of limitations. Defendants also argued that plaintiff failed to exhaust all of her contractual and administrative remedies and failed to mitigate her damages to the extent that they actually occurred at all. Moreover, defendants contended that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and properly correct any discrimination or harassment and plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective procedures provided by the City or take other steps to avoid harm.

Result

$275,000 settlement