California Court of Appeal

Summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where evidence created a reasonable inference that: plaintiff was unable to perform the essential functions of her job at the time defendant replaced her, and plaintiff could not have returned to her position at that time with a reasonable accommodation; defendant had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for failing to hire plaintiff for another position; plaintiff failed to establish a failure to accommodate; and no duty was triggered on defendant's part to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process to determine an effective reasonable accommodation with plaintiff.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/09/2006
• Published 05/09/2006

Judges

• SIMONS, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Mayo & Rogers and Richard M. Rogers, San Francisco, for Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Heller Ehrman, Patricia K. Gillette, San Francisco, and Greg J. Richardson Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent.