CASE SUMMARY:
The DFEH filed the civil case in December 2000 against the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for failure to provide reasonable accommodation to William Clark. Clark, a detective, developed a mental disability after sustaining a head injury while serving a search warrant. Because his disability prohibited him from carrying a weapon, he could no longer perform the duties of a Sheriff's Investigator. The County denied his request for disability accommodation to work as a gardener, truck driver, or other non-peace officer position, as was recommended by his physician. The County also instructed him not to accept employment outside of the Sheriff's Department. The jury found that the County failed to grant William Clark a reasonable accommodation of the mental disability he developed following an on-the-job injury.

WHAT WENT WRONG:

The DFEH successfully argued that the County was obligated to accommodate Clark's disability by transferring him to an available position he could satisfactorily perform. The County contended that it was not required to assign him to a position outside his job classification unless he again participated in the competitive civil service process, even though he was not a new employee.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE/LESSON LEARNED:

The appellate court emphasized that "[i]f an employer's only duty were to reassign a disabled employee to a position involving the same duties and responsibilities he already cannot perform due to his disability, the right of reassignment would mean nothing."

The Court of Appeals' ruling reiterates that California employers have an affirmative obligation to engage in an interactive process with an employee who has a disability in order to ascertain whether a reasonable accommodation can be provided to that employee.  The underlying purpose of the Fair Employment and Housing Act's prohibition on disability discrimination is to keep persons with disabilities working at jobs for which they are qualified whenever possible.

Be careful assuming what is in the “best interest” for safety officers when facing retirement or reassignment to non-safety work.

RESULTS:

The 4th District Court of Appeal upheld the $460,000 jury award and found that the County failed to grant William Clark a reasonable accommodation of the mental disability he developed following an on-the-job injury. The jury's award included $160,000 in economic damages and $300,000 in non-economic damages.

SOURCE:
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/announcements/pressReleases.aspx?pressReleaseId=20#viewPR