Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Cal.: Employee’s disability discrimination claim fails because of work restrictions; but failure to accommodate claim survives, (Jul 16, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The issue for a disability discrimination claim is whether an employee could perform the essential functions of the employee’s previous job, not the essential functions of the job to which the employee sought to be reassigned.

An employer was granted its motion for summary judgment with respect to the disability discrimination and failure to deliver personnel files claims under FEHA of a tanker truck driver who was injured in a work-related automobile accident, ruled a federal district court in California. Because the employee was precluded from performing heavy work, and tanker truck drivers are required to be able to lift up to 50 pounds, he was unable to perform the essential duties of the tanker truck driver position. However, the court denied summary judgment as to the employee’s claims for failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy (Estrada v. KAG West, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-00257-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2025)).

On August 23, 2018, the employee began his employment with the employer as a tanker truck driver at its location in Bakersfield, California. The employer informed the employee in writing that the essential duties of being a tanker truck driver included, among other requirements, that the driver be able to “bend, reach, push, pull, stoop, squat, kneel, and climb” and “grasp, lift as high as above the head, carry and handle heavy equipment up to 50 [pounds] as necessary.”

Disability. Around February 2, 2021, the employee was involved in a work-related automobile accident in which he was injured. On November 19, 2021, following an agreed upon medical examination, the employee was found “temporarily disabled,” and it was anticipated that he would approach “maximal medical improvement” in approximately 10 months. In February 2022, the employee’s primary treating physician released him for light duty work with restrictions, including “[l]ifting, pushing, or pulling limitations: [u]p to 25 pounds.”

Light duty assignment. However, there were no light duty assignments available at the Bakersfield terminal at that time, so the employer helped the employee secure a “temporary transitional duty assignment” with a thrift store that was not a part of its organization. The employee worked at the thrift store for about a month before informing the employer that he could not physically perform the duties of the temporary assignment.

On September 12, 2022, the employee was examined again by his primary physician, who found that he had reached “maximal medical improvement” and was “unable to return to his preinjury work” of tanker truck driving.

Lawsuit. On October 11, 2022, the employee emailed the employer’s human resources department, stating that he was ready “to get back to work with restrictions.” The workers’ compensation department advised the employee that the employer was unable to accommodate his permanent work restrictions. Thereafter, the employee brought this action for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; wrongful termination; and failure to deliver his personnel file. The employer moved for summary judgment on all claims.

The court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment as to the employee’s claims for disability discrimination and failure to deliver personnel files and denied the motion with respect to his claims for failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and wrongful termination.

Disability claims. To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under FEHA, a plaintiff must show that: (1) [he] suffered from a disability; (2) could perform the essential duties of the job with or without reasonable accommodations, i.e., he was a “qualified individual”; and (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability. The parties did not dispute that the employee suffered from a disability as defined by FEHA. Rather, they primarily argued whether he was a “qualified individual”—that is whether he could perform the essential duties of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.

The essential duties of being a tanker truck driver for the employer included, among other requirements, the ability to “grasp, lift as high as above the head, carry and handle heavy equipment up to 50 [pounds] as necessary.” On September 12, 2022, a medical evaluation noted that the employee had reached “maximal medical improvement” and was “unable to return to his preinjury work.” Specifically, the evaluation found that the employee had decreased grip in his right wrist and issues with his lumbar spine. Given that the employee was precluded from performing heavy work, and tanker truck drivers for the employer are required to be able to lift up to 50 pounds, he was unable to perform the essential duties of the tanker truck driver position.

Because the employee could not perform the essential functions of a tanker truck driver, the employer’s motion for summary judgment as to the employee’s claim for disability discrimination was granted.

Failure to accommodate. “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff's disability.”

Here, the employee asserted that he may have been qualified for other positions to which he could have been reassigned in the employer’s organization. For its part, the employer argued that the employee was not a qualified individual.

The employee’s claim that the employer failed to accommodate his disability was based on his contention that, as there were no positions available at the Bakersfield terminal for which he was qualified given his work restrictions, the employer should have offered to transfer him to another location within its organization that had positions available for which he was qualified.

Here, the employee established that light duty positions were available at various employer locations between October 2022 and December 2024. It was undisputed that the employee was on leave throughout the period between October 2022 and December 2024, and the employer had a duty to continue to engage in the interactive process with him the entire time. Therefore, light duty positions that were available during that time would be relevant as potential accommodations for the employee. Accordingly, the employee met his burden of production to demonstrate that there were positions available for which he was qualified.

Interactive process. “The interactive process [to determine possible accommodations] is triggered either by a request for accommodation by a disabled employee or by the employer's recognition of the need for such an accommodation.”

According to the employer, “any breakdown in the interactive process was due to” the employee, and the employee’s decision to work for another company indicated that he “walked away from [the interactive] process” and did not engage in good faith in the interactive process. The court was not persuaded.

The employee’s claim did not rely on the employer’s assertion that it engaged in the interactive process at those times. Rather, the employee claimed that once his work restrictions became permanent and he reached out to the employer to discuss possible accommodations to come back to work, it unreasonably halted the interactive process of finding a suitable accommodation that would permit him to come back to work.

A reasonable jury could find that the employee’s email implied a willingness to relocate and could find that the employer failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith by prematurely and unreasonably terminating the interactive process. Therefore, summary judgment as to this claim was also denied.

Wrongful termination. To prove a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he was employed by the defendant; (2) the defendant discharged the plaintiff; (3) the alleged violation of public policy was a motivating reason for discharge; and (4) the discharge harmed the plaintiff.

Given that the employee’s FEHA claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process survived summary judgment, the employer failed on its argument that it was entitled to summary judgment on his claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy because it was derivative of his FEHA claims. Rather, the employee’s claim was clearly that he was constructively discharged when he was put on indefinite leave given the employer’s failure to accommodate his work restrictions. Accordingly, summary judgment was denied on the employee’s claim for wrongful termination.

The case is No. 1:24-CV-00257-KES-CDB.

Judge: Sherriff, K.

Attorneys: Jonathan D. Roven (Jonny Law) for Jose Estrada. Brian L. Johnsrud (Duane Morris) for KAG West, LLC.

Companies: Kag West, LLC

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discharge StateLawClaims CaliforniaNews