CASE SUMMARY:
An employee with lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and a heart condition requested on several occasions a reasonable accommodation to reduce his driving commute by transfer to another branch office.

The ACSC failed to respond and did not engage in an interactive process under FEHA to explore potential ways to reasonably accommodate. This is a separate basis for liability under FEHA, even if there is no reasonable accommodation that can ultimately be offered.

The plaintiff sued for several "cause of action" under FEHA: failure to engage in the interactive process; failure to reasonably accommodate; disability discrimination; retaliation; and age discrimination.

The jury ruled in favor of Wysinger on the failure to engage in the interactive process and retaliation, but found against him on the claim for failure to reasonably accommodate and discrimination. The Appellate Court rejected ACSC's argument on appeal that this was an inconsistent verdict, ruling that the failure to engage in an interactive process is a separate and independent requirement…

Court ruled that $1 million in punitive damages is not disproportionate to the award of compensatory damages of $280,000.

Court ruled that the attorneys fees awarded to the plaintiff for his attorneys' efforts in achieving this result were not unreasonable.

WHAT WENT WRONG:
"Under FEHA , an employer must engage in a good faith interactive process with the disabled employee to explore alternatives to accommodate the disability… Failure to engage in this process is a separate FEHA violation independent from an employer's failure to provide a reasonable disability accommodation, which is also a FEHA violation."

"An employer may claim there were no available reasonable accommodations. But if it did not engage in a good faith interactive process it cannot be known whether an alternative job would have been found….

"Here the jury could find there was not failure to provide a reasonable accommodation because the parties never reached the state of deciding which accommodations were required.  ACSC preventing this from happening by its refusal to engage in the interactive process…. the jury could find ACSC liable because it obstructed the process to determine a reasonable accommodation." 

WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE/LESSON LEARNED:
Engage. Engage in the interactive process.  Show a “good faith effort”.

RESULTS:
Total jury verdict that was upheld on appeal: $2.26 million: $204,000 Economic damages; $80,000 Non economic damages; $1 million punitive damages; $978,791 attorneys fees as damages