CASE SUMMARY:
George Alberigi was an employee of the County of Sonoma for 25 years. In the mid-1980’s he was diagnosed with panic disorder and agoraphobia. The County accommodated his disabilities for 15 years. In 2001, the County required Alberigi to transfer from his long-term position to a new position where they made no effort to accommodate his disability. This transfer was a promotion. In 2002, Alberigi went off work because of his panic attacks. The County’s “Fitness for Duty” doctor said that Alberigi should be accommodated with a case load requiring no face-to-face contact with clients. Despite this recommendation, the County refused to accommodate and claimed, for the first time, that face-to-face contact with clients was an essential function of the job. Alberigi requested to be returned to his old position and abandon his promotion. The County refused. The County also refused the offer of a co-worker with a non-face-to-face caseload to swap with Alberigi. In 2003, after filing legal claims against the County, Alberigi returned to work and received his first negative evaluation in 23 years. In 2004, the County again sent him for a Fitness for Duty exam and a new employer doctor reached the same conclusions as the first. Alberigi became suicidal and took a leave of absence in 2004, never to return to work.
  
WHAT WENT WRONG:
The County alleged that face-to-face contact is an “essential function” of an Eligibility Worker. This claim was contradicted at trial by the County’s own employees who testified that there was plenty of eligibility work Alberigi could have done without meeting face-to-face with clients. The credibility of that defense was also undermined by the fact the County previously allowed Alberigi to limit his face to face contact with clients for fifteen years.
The County claimed that it offered Alberigi a Clerk/Typist position in March of 2003 that did not require face-to-face contact. Alberigi disputed such an offer had been made. The County also alleged that in June of 2004, several months after the litigation commenced, the County informed Alberigi it would consider him for three clerk positions (Clerk Typist, Mail Clerk, or Microfilm Technician.) The positions paid less salary, but the County claimed it would make up the pay differential. Alberigi’s investigation indicated that the positions required face-to-face contact and a one-year probation.
The jury indicated after the verdict that they did not consider these positions to be good faith “job offers”.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE/LESSON LEARNED:
California employers have an affirmative obligation to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with an employee who has a disability in order to ascertain whether a reasonable accommodation can be provided to that employee. Federal courts have provided an interpretation of “good faith,” essentially stating that an employer and employee must communicate directly with each other to determine essential information and that neither party can delay or interfere with the process. To demonstrate good-faith engagement in the interactive process, the employer should be able to point to cooperative behavior that promotes the identification of an appropriate accommodation.

Essential Functions ought to be documented in a formal position description and developed in accordance with the EEOC’s guidelines which provide guidance as to what functions are essential and which are marginal or desirable.
 
RESULTS:
The jury awarded Alberigi $1.5 million in lost wages and $5 million for pain and suffering and other damages. Alberigi also won attorney fees, which could add another six figures to the County's cost.

SOURCES:
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=SCV+233788&s=CA%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&d=31216