25 Cited authorities

Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc.
36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) Cited 1,581 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that to establish a "protected activity," an "employee's communications to the employer [must] sufficiently convey the employee's reasonable concerns that the employer has acted or is acting in an unlawful discriminatory manner."
King v. United Parcel Services, Inc.
152 Cal.App.4th 426 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 383 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding employer had no duty to accommodate employee who returned to work with a doctor's note releasing him back to "regular duties and hours" and who admitted he was able to "get the job done"
Kennedy v. Applause, Inc.
90 F.3d 1477 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 519 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Rule 4 did not apply because the amount of fees and costs had yet to be determined and the district court had requested briefing on the matter
Dept. of Fair Emp't v. Lucent Tech
642 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 288 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that under FEHA, a plaintiff "can not simply show the employer's decision was wrong, mistaken, or unwise"
Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
74 Cal.App.4th 215 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 382 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a finite leave of absence has been considered to be a reasonable accommodation under ADA, provided it is likely that following the leave the employee would be able to perform his or her duties"
Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank
85 Cal.App.4th 245 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 361 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the critical question in a failure-to-accommodate case is "whether the informal process broke down, and, if so, which party was responsible"
Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc.
165 Cal.App.4th 1237 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 251 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that calling in sick during an absence and providing hospital forms describing the illness upon return to work is sufficient notice
Lawler v. Montblanc North America, LLC
704 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 221 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding a Plaintiff states a prima facie case for a violation of FEHA where " [Plaintiff] is a member of a protected group; [Plaintiff] was subjected to harassment because [Plaintiff] belonged to this group; and the alleged harassment was so severe that it created a hostile work environment"
Myers v. Hose
50 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 1995) Cited 356 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding on summary judgment that "the duty of reasonable accommodation does not encompass a responsibility to provide a disabled employee with alternative employment when the employee is unable to meet the demands of his [or her] present position."
Nealy v. City of Santa Monica
234 Cal.App.4th 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 197 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the employee should be able to identify specific, available reasonable accommodations through the litigation process, and particularly by the time the parties have conducted discovery" (citing Scotch, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 365)
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 336,952 times 161 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 11068 - Reasonable Accommodation
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 11068 Cited 83 times 1 Legal Analyses
Granting or extending a leave may be a reasonable accommodation "provided that the leave is likely to be effective in allowing the employee to return to work at the end of the leave ...."

Elisa Amar v. Remitco Llc

25 Cited authorities

Holding that to establish a "protected activity," an "employee's communications to the employer [must] sufficiently convey the employee's reasonable concerns that the employer has acted or is acting in an unlawful discriminatory manner."

Holding employer had no duty to accommodate employee who returned to work with a doctor's note releasing him back to "regular duties and hours" and who admitted he was able to "get the job done"

Holding that Rule 4 did not apply because the amount of fees and costs had yet to be determined and the district court had requested briefing on the matter

Holding that under FEHA, a plaintiff "can not simply show the employer's decision was wrong, mistaken, or unwise"

Holding that "a finite leave of absence has been considered to be a reasonable accommodation under ADA, provided it is likely that following the leave the employee would be able to perform his or her duties"

Holding that the critical question in a failure-to-accommodate case is "whether the informal process broke down, and, if so, which party was responsible"

Holding that calling in sick during an absence and providing hospital forms describing the illness upon return to work is sufficient notice

Holding a Plaintiff states a prima facie case for a violation of FEHA where " [Plaintiff] is a member of a protected group; [Plaintiff] was subjected to harassment because [Plaintiff] belonged to this group; and the alleged harassment was so severe that it created a hostile work environment"

Holding on summary judgment that "the duty of reasonable accommodation does not encompass a responsibility to provide a disabled employee with alternative employment when the employee is unable to meet the demands of his [or her] present position."

Holding that "the employee should be able to identify specific, available reasonable accommodations through the litigation process, and particularly by the time the parties have conducted discovery" (citing Scotch, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 365)

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Granting or extending a leave may be a reasonable accommodation "provided that the leave is likely to be effective in allowing the employee to return to work at the end of the leave ...."