October 28, 2022 – Los Angeles, California. Carlsbad attorneys Golnar Fozi and Jeremy Dwork of Fozi Dwork & Modafferi, LLP obtained a defense verdict in favor of Montebello Unified School District on September 29, 2022. The case was tried to verdict in Superior Court in downtown Los Angeles.
Plaintiff was an Office Assistant at Montebello High School. Her job duties consisted of answering phones, taking messages, helping register students, writing dismissal slips, answering questions, making copies, entering data on the computer, assisting the Nutrition staff with lunch applications, collecting books from students. In November 2012, plaintiff fell while at work, injuring her knee, shoulder, wrist, thigh and groin. She received medical treatment through the workers compensation program. In May 2014, plaintiff reported to the school Principal that while using the computer mouse, her index and middle fingers of her right hand got stuck in a fixed position. She was instructed to get medical treatment right away through workers compensation. Starting the middle of 2014, plaintiff produced a series of notes from her doctors asking the District to provide her with certain accommodations while she was getting treated. The doctors’ notes indicated that those accommodations could not be reasonably granted, then the District should put her on medical leave. The restrictions began with no more than 20 minutes of keyboard or computer mouse use per hour, and no gripping or grasping more than 20 cumulative minutes per hour. No pushing or pulling more than 10 lbs. The District accommodated these restrictions so she could keep working and not be placed on an unpaid medical leave. The District bought plaintiff assistive devices and allowed her to organize her duties so that she would not exceed 20 minutes of keyboard and computer work, gripping grasping with your hands.
Plaintiff’s treatment continued into the 2018 academic year. She was not getting better. Plaintiff was absent from work more days she worked in July, August and September 2018. When she did come to work, she had to self-limit her work so she did not type or use the computer or grip or grasp anything more than 20 minutes an hour, or push or pull anything more than 5 pounds. Plaintiff was absent from work most of October 2018 due to pain and medical appointments.
In November 2018, Plaintiff came to work but on very next day she fell in the cafeteria and had to be taken to the doctor. She missed work most of November. When she came to work in December, her restrictions were “no standing or walking at work”. She had to be in a seated position and wear knee and arm brace. The District accommodated these restrictions. Later that month, an additional restriction: she had to keep her leg elevated while working. The District accommodated that restriction. Plaintiff was absent from work almost all of January. She came to work on January 25 with a new doctor’s note. This time, the doctor’s note provided: “No typing and no filing over 20 minutes. No repetitive work of any kind for over 20 minutes.” Dr. Spencer, the physician who provided this January 25th note testified at trial that as of January 25, 2019, plaintiff reported extreme pain and difficulty in closing her hands or touching her fingers together.
On January 25, 2019, the District informed plaintiff that they could not accommodate these latest restrictions as she could not discharge the essential functions of her position given these restrictions. She was placed on medical leave effective January 25, 2019. She ran out of all paid leave and 100 days of differential pay by the end of June 2019, after which she was placed on the 39-month rehire calendar. Plaintiff never looked for another position or opening at the District, and she never applied for a job anywhere else. In 2021, she filed for retirement and retired from employment.
Plaintiff sued the District alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in a good faith interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation. By the time of trial, plaintiff had dismissed two causes of action. The matter went to jury on Disability Discrimination; Failure to Accommodate; and Retaliation. Despite asking the jury to award nearly $400,000 in economic damages and millions in emotional distress, the jury returned a Defense verdict on all causes of action.
For more information on how the attorneys at Fozi Dwork & Modafferi, LLP can help you, your business or organization, please do not hesitate to call (760) 444-0039.