Facts

Charging party Homeyra Kazerounian, who is hearing impaired, volunteered at defendant Placer ARC, prior to being hired as an Instructional Aide in April 2005, at ARC's Auburn facility. ARC is a not for profit organization dedicated to the support, education, and well-being of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

In February 2008, Kazerounian became a 1:1 Instructional Aide at ARC's Roseville Adult Center facility. Kazerounian resigned her employment with ARC on May 28, 2010.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
In December 2008, Kazerounian filed a complaint of discrimination with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which was dually filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. Kazerounian also filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC in October 2010, alleging constructive discharge. EEOC claimed that Placer ARC violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by discriminating against Kazerounian by not providing her with a qualified ASL interpreter, by retaliating against her when she asserted her rights, and by constructively discharging her from her employment on May 28, 2010.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Placer ARC claimed it did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. ARC claimed Kazerounian could not perform the essential functions of her job even with an ASL certified interpreter. ARC claimed it provided Kazerounian with reasonable accommodations that she refused, and any adverse actions taken against her were due to legitimate business reasons. ARC argued it did not constructively discharge her from her employment because a reasonable person in her position would not have felt forced to quit, as there were no intolerable and discriminatory working conditions. In addition, there was no evidence to support awards of back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, or punitive damages.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff attempted several times to resolve the case prior to filing suit, including statutorily mandated conciliation. Plaintiff rejected defendant's Rule 68 offer. The parties were not successful in two attempts to settle the case during the pendency of litigation, including a court-ordered settlement conference with the judge and private mediation. Defendant claimed settlement discussions were unsuccessful due to the EEOC's insistence on broad based injunctive relief and the issuance of a press release. The EEOC claimed it could not agree to settlement conditions demanded by defendant, which were antithetical to the core mission of the EEOC, the agency charged with enforcing of the ADA.

Result

Unanimous special verdict for defendant finding that Kazerounian was qualified for the job, but that Placer ARC did not discriminate against Kazerounian and that Placer ARC did not constructively discharge her from her employment.

Other Information

The EEOC's motions to compel discovery beyond the discovery cut-off date set by the court in its pretrial scheduling order were denied, the court also rejected the EEOC's motions to take depositions, compel answers to requests for admissions, and to bring additional discovery disputes to a magistrate judge for resolution. U.S.E.E.O.C. v. Placer ARC, 2014 WL 5419879 (ED Cal. Oct. 23, 2014). Placer ARC's Motion for summary judgment was granted in part, the court dismissed the claim of the EEOC's complaint alleging unlawful retaliation under the ADA. U.S.E.E.O.C. v. Placer ARC, F.Supp.3d, 2015 WL 4250662 (ED Cal. July 13, 2015). EXPERT TESTIMONY: Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Shana Williams, a clinical psychologist, specializing in in working with deaf and hard of hearing, and expert on deaf culture, assessed Kazerounian's language abilities in both ASL and English, and expressed her opinion as to whether the methods of communication relied upon by defendant affected Kazerounian's ability to communicate and whether and the extent to which the assignment of Kazerounian to work one-on-one with a person in a wheel chair had any impact on her ability to communicate. Plaintiff's expert, James Brune testified about procedures employers should utilize to determine appropriate accommodations for deaf employees, the interplay between Deaf cultures and appropriate accommodations and about community resources available to employers. He also testified about the difficulties deaf employees face in finding employment. FILING DATE: March 25, 2013.

Deliberation

six hours

Poll

8-0

Length

11 days