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
ADA and FEHA

Joyce Bratton v. City of Alameda

Published: Nov. 24, 2007 | Result Date: May 2, 2007 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: RG05237026 Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Dave Linn


Defendant

Donna R. Mooney

Teresa L. Highsmith

Linda Tripoli


Facts

In November 1998, plaintiff Joyce Bratton began working as a temporary library technician for defendant city of Alameda. She became a permanent employee six months later. In August 2002, plaintiff developed a repetitive stress injury, which she eventually felt in her neck and shoulders. The injury worsened and plaintiff was forced to twice take a leave from work. According to plaintiff, although she was able to return to her job both times, defendant never asked about her injury or how it could be accommodated.

The plaintiff took a third leave from work and was released to return in October 2003. However, her doctor imposed restrictions such as a four-hour workday, no typing for more than 30 minutes in an hour, no repetitive handwork for more than 30 minutes in an hour, a headset for telephone use, and no lifting objects over five pounds. The library director informed plaintiff that the library could not accommodate the restrictions. The plaintiff's doctor again placed her on temporary disability. The defendant offered plaintiff rehabilitation services because it did not have a position that would allow for her restrictions.

The plaintiff claimed violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, alleging she was terminated due to her disability and defendant's failure to provide accommodations.

Defendant contested the claims, asserting that it terminated plaintiff's employment when it could not reasonably accommodate her restrictions through modified job duties and only after granting time off, conducting an ergonomic evaluation, providing equipment and providing light duty throughout the interactive process.

Damages

The plaintiff sought $463,581.

Result

Judgment was for defendant.


#81821

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

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