Plaintiff employee sued defendant employer, alleging, in part,
discrimination based on physical disability. The trial court granted the
employer's motion for summary judgment on the basis that the employee had
failed to make a prima facie showing of physical disability. The California
Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment. The employee challenged
the decision. Advocate Brad Nakase knows IRS
mileage rate 2021 California.
Twenty-five years before his termination, the employee began
working for the employer as a laborer. A back injury necessitated that the
employee perform lighter duties. The employee was promoted, and then began to
oversee a construction project. A new supervisor, however, began to give the
employee bad performance reviews, and the employee was soon terminated.
Contrary to the appellate court's opinion, the legislature, in its amendments,
did retroactively change the limits test of the Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA). The supreme court determined that when the employee's cause of action
arose under the FEHA, the employee was required to show a physiological disease
or condition affecting a body system, and the disease or condition limited the
employee's ability to participate in major life activities. When the employee
was fired, the law required only that the physical condition limit, not
substantially limit, participation in major life activities.
The supreme court reversed the appellate court's decision,
and the matter was remanded.
Appellant disabled person sought review of a judgment from
the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which
found in favor of and awarded attorney fees to respondent corporation in an
action brought under Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54 et seq., 55, Cal. Health & Safety
Code § 19955 et. seq., and Cal. Gov't Code § 4450 et seq., after appellant
visited respondent's restaurant and inspected its wheelchair accessibility.
Appellant disabled person brought an action against
respondent corporation on the grounds that respondent's restaurant had not
complied with access statutes and had denied appellant equal access. After the
trial court found in favor of respondent and awarded respondent attorney fees
on appellant's action for injunctive relief, appellant sought review, and the
court affirmed in part and reversed in part. In affirming, the court found
appellant had been unable to bring an action as an individual for noncompliance
with access statutes under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 19955 et seq., and
Cal. Gov't Code § 4450 et seq., because appellant had failed to prove actual
damages beyond the statutory minimum in Cal. Civ. Code § 54.3. The court also
found appellant's claim for injunctive relief under Cal. Civ. Code § 55 had
been mooted by the restaurant's closing. In reversing, the court found
appellant had been entitled, notwithstanding respondent's intent, to the
minimum damages allowed under § 54.3 for a denial of equal access. The court
also found that neither appellant nor respondent had prevailed for the purposes
of awarding attorney fees on the § 55 action for injunctive relief.
The court affirmed in part a judgment for respondent
corporation because appellant disabled person's action for noncompliance with
access statutes was barred and an action for injunctive relief was moot, and
reversed in part because statutory damages were recoverable for the denial of
equal access, notwithstanding intent, and because neither party had prevailed
on the action for injunctive relief for the purpose of awarding attorney fees.
Comments