Case Summary

4771 Based on a statement by plaintiff's doctor that he encouraged plaintiff to seek a different position with her employer because of her physical disability, a question of fact existed about whether the employer, who terminated plaintiff, could be liable for disability discrimination and wrongful termination; the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) requires an employer to engage in an interactive process involving communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodation, with both sides exchanging essential information; liability may be imposed on an employer for failing to provide reasonable accommodation and for failing to properly engage in an interactive process; in attempting to accommodate an employee's disability, an employer is not required to provide information about every vacant position at every one of its locations throughout the United States, but a trial court's order requiring disclosure of such positions in only two cities was found to be excessively restrictive; nonemployer individuals cannot be personally liable for employment retaliation.

NADAF-RAHROV v NEIMAN MARCUS (Accommodation) 166 CA4 952 [See: GovC 12940 etseq; Green v State 42 C4 254, T/AT 9/07; Bagatti v Dept of Rehab 97 CA4 344, T/AT 5/02; Prilliman v United 53 CA4 935, T/AT 5/97; Jones v The Lodge 42 C4 1158, T/AT 4/08]