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
ADA
Failure to Accomodate

Edward Schmucker v. Port of Oakland, et al.

Published: Nov. 22, 1997 | Result Date: Sep. 5, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 7506022 –  $0

Judge

Dawn B. Girard

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Gary A. Hall

Tesfaye W. Tsadik


Defendant

Susan T. Kumagai
(Lafayette & Kumagai LLP)

Gary T. Lafayette
(Lafayette & Kumagai LLP)


Facts

The plaintiff worked as an equipment systems engineer (ESE) for defendant Port of Oakland from May 16, 1983 at its harbor facilities in Jack London Square. Plaintiff utilizes a prosthesis on his right leg. He worked at the harbor facilities area without requesting any accommodation due to his wearing a prosthesis. On Aug. 4, 1993, plaintiff was involved in an altercation with a co-worker. After an investigation, plaintiff was transferred to the Oakland airport facility to separate him from the other co-worker. Neither plaintiff's job title or duties changed as a result of the transfer, and he commenced work with his former supervisor from the harbor. However, he claimed that the airport job was more physically demanding because it required more walking than at the harbor, it required him to climb vertical ladders, stoop, bend and drive, things not required of him at Jack London Square. The plaintiff requested a transfer back to the harbor as a reasonable accommodation, claiming that he could better do his job at that location. On Dec. 13, 1994, the plaintiff was demoted. The plaintiff brought this action against defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act for failure to accommodate his disability.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $400,000, increased to $1 million at trial.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately two years. By special verdict, the jury found that notwithstanding that plaintiff wore a prosthesis and was disabled, the plaintiff did not need any special accommodation on his job. The jury never reached the issue of whether or not the plaintiff had been accommodated in the workplace.

Deliberation

five hours

Poll

None

Length

14 days


#79882

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

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