Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—C.D. Cal.: Deaf instructor, granted service dog request after threatening lawsuit, partially advances claims, (Dec 2, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

The school district granted his service dog accommodation request nearly two-and-a-half years after he had initially inquired about bringing a dog to work.

A deaf elementary school instructional assistant can move forward with his ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and some state-law claims with regard to his accommodation request to bring a service dog with him to the school, ruled a federal district court in California. The court did grant summary judgment in favor of the district on his FEHA discrimination claims, finding he had experienced no adverse employment action. The court noted a genuine dispute as to whether the district engaged in the interactive process in good faith, given the length of time between the initial request and subsequent grant of the accommodation, as well as whether an alternative accommodation was reasonable in light of its failure during a campus emergency (Kim v. Santa Ana Unified School District, No. 8:24-CV-00650 MEME-JDE (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)).

Sometime around December 20, 2019, the employee in this case was hired as an instructional assistant at an elementary school. The employee was born deaf with bilateral hearing loss and uses a cochlear implant.

Service dog request. On March 13, 2021, the employee sent an email to the school’s principal inquiring about the school’s policy on service dogs. In response, the principal stated that the matter would have to be explored with the district. The principal forwarded the email to a few district employees.

A risk management administrator with the district emailed the employee on May 5, 2021, advising him that she “was provided with your email regarding an accommodation for the use of a hearing dog,” and that he should start the process of applying for a hearing dog, which the employee then undertook.

Over five separate times between May 2021 and March 2022, the employee advised the district on his progress in obtaining a service dog and what information he needed from the district for his service dog application. He formally applied for a service dog on September 30, 2021.

According to district policy, the first step in the process of a formal accommodation request is an interactive process meeting, the first of which was held with the employee on March 21, 2022.

Campus emergency. On May 23, 2022, an individual entered the school campus without permission. School officials and law enforcement were alerted and informed that the individual likely had a bomb or an incendiary device. The individual later hit multiple students with a car.

At the time, the employee and other deaf and heard of hearing teachers and students were already in their classrooms. They were not alerted to the situation or advised to evacuate by the school’s emergency equipment or by any other means, even though non-hearing impaired students were evacuated and those who were not on campus were advised to stay away. Later, the employee and his students were evacuated when a custodian told them to leave the building.

Interactive process continues. On or about December 2, 2022, a second interactive process meeting took place with the employee, followed by two more in February and April. Prior to these meetings, the employee regularly communicated his status in obtaining a service dog, offering to provide any required information. He never received an update on whether his accommodation request had been approved.

Formal approval finally came on June 26, 2023, after the employee’s legal counsel had advised the district that he intended to file suit under the ADA. The employee obtained and brought his service dog to work starting in September 2023. Nevertheless, the lawsuit went forward and the district moved for summary judgment against all claims.

Failure to accommodate. First, the court addressed the employee’s ADA failure-to-accommodate claim. It was undisputed that the employee is a qualified individual with a disability. However, the district contended that the employee did not make a request for a reasonable accommodation on March 13, 2021, to start the interactive process and argued that there was no evidence the employee had ever submitted a formal request. The court was not moved.

A reasonable jury could find that the employee made an initial formal request for an accommodation of a service dog on March 13, said the court. His email stated that he was requesting a service dog who would alert him to sounds, such as people calling his name and the ringing of the classroom telephone. Further, a jury could find that the district knew this was an accommodation request because it treated it as such, stating internally that “[t]he process to accommodate a service dog is through the Interactive Process.”

Alternative accommodation. Next, the district argued that it had provided a reasonable alternative accommodation in the form of an “advanced [electronic messaging] notification system, strobes, and other equipment.” However, the court explained that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these accommodations were even provided and, if so, whether they were reasonable.

The employee never received in writing an offer for any specific alternative accommodation other than a service dog, observed the court. Even if the employee was offered the equipment as a reasonable alternative accommodation, the court noted there was a genuine dispute as to whether this equipment was effective and was thus a reasonable accommodation, pointing to the failed evacuation as one example of how a jury could find this accommodation to be unreasonable.

Good faith? As to whether the district engaged in the interactive process in good faith, the court determined the employee had proffered enough evidence to show a genuine dispute of material fact on this issue. The employee never refused to provide any information requested by the district related to his request. Nevertheless, the district waited a year after the initial request to have its first interactive process meeting, when nothing was preventing it from holding meetings earlier. Further, the employee went from June to November 2022 without hearing from the district, despite providing the district with all of its requested information.

Accordingly, a reasonable jury could find the district did not engage in the interactive process in good faith, and the court denied the district’s motion for summary judgment against the employee’s ADA failure-to-accommodate claim.

Rehabilitation Act. Next, the court considered the employee’s Rehabilitation Act and state-law claim for failure to accommodate. The school district argued the employee did not have standing for his Rehab Act claim because it ultimately granted his accommodation request. The court was not persuaded.

Here, the district failed to meet its burden to show that the allegedly wrong behavior would not reoccur, explained the court, pointing to the fact that it only agreed to the employee’s accommodation request after he informed the district that he was planning to file suit. Further, the court found the employee had suffered compensable damages because of the district’s failure to accommodate, with the employee pointing to different travel costs at the time he went for service dog training, which would have been cheaper had the district approved his accommodation request earlier. Also, an actual controversy still exists beyond the accommodation request and damages as the employee is seeking policies and training to prevent the discrimination he experienced in this instance.

With regard to whether the employee was provided a reasonable alternative accommodation, the court noted that the same ADA standards apply to analyzing a violation of Section 504 of the Rehab Act, and because summary judgment was denied as to the ADA claim, it too was denied as to the Rehab Act claim. Further, the employee’s state-law claim is identical to the Rehab Act claim, and thus summary judgment was also denied as to this claim.

FEHA discrimination. Turning to the employee’s discrimination claim under FEHA, the court agreed with the district that the employee did not suffer an adverse employment action. Rejecting the employee’s claim that the failure to accommodate his request endangered his safety—as illustrated by the intruder incident—and thus had a detrimental effect on his employment, the court noted that nothing had changed with regard to his employment. Accordingly, his recourse was limited to the failure to accommodate provisions of the ADA and FEHA.

Other FEHA claims. As to the employee’s FEHA claims for failure to accommodate, the court noted that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the employee was provided a reasonable accommodation and whether the district had engaged in the interactive process in good faith. It also rejected the district’s contention that allowing the service dog on campus would constitute an undue hardship, denying the district’s motion for summary judgment against these claims.

Failure to prevent discrimination. Addressing the employee’s FEHA claim for failure to prevent discrimination, the court found this claim too failed because the employee was not subjected to an adverse employment action.

Affirmative defenses. Finally, the court addressed the employee’s motion for summary judgment on 12 of the district’s 13 affirmative defenses, granting the motion as to eight of the defenses, leaving the remaining defenses for trial.

The case is No. 8:24-CV-00650 MEME-JDE.

Judge: Frimpong, M.

Attorneys: Deborah D. Gettleman (McGuinness Law Group) for David Kim. Thomas M. Madruga (Olivarez Madruga Law Organization) for Santa Ana Unified School District.

Companies: Santa Ana Unified School District

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Procedure PublicEmployees StateLawClaims CaliforniaNews