Takeaway: Procedural missteps might result in prolonged litigation, such as having to defend claims before a jury in the first place, even if they don’t necessarily lead to liability.
An information technology worker with a lifting restriction failed to persuade a jury that she could perform her job’s essential functions. The California Court of Appeal affirmed a ruling in the employer’s favor, despite its finding that the employer’s process of determining the essential job functions was flawed.
In April 2017, an on-the-job incident occurred in which the plaintiff, who worked for Riverside County, Calif., rode in a work vehicle where a fire extinguisher had exploded. As a result of exposure to chemicals in the fire extinguisher, she developed a condition called chemical pneumonia. To address her condition, she saw a doctor, who performed a full physical evaluation. A medical assistant checked a circle on an injury form indicating that the plaintiff “constantly” had to lift 51 to 75 pounds. The assistant filled out the form at or near the time the assistant talked to the patient.
The doctor issued restrictions on the plaintiff’s return to work, including no lifting of more than 20 pounds; no prolonged sitting, standing, or walking; no repetitive neck bending or neck motions; no climbing or kneeling; and no exposure to chemicals or their fumes and vapors.
The next day, the plaintiff went to work, but HR told her that her disability could not be accommodated. She was sent...
UK consumers received GBP 3.5 billion in refunds due to friendly fraud over the past 12 months, according to emerchantpay. The company estimated that 6.5 million people received money back after m...