What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant failed to show that the need for accommodation duration was properly communicated to applicant.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure contributed to the finding that defendant's personnel actions were not in good faith.
From the decision · page 5Disability manager Gonzalez testified that the problem with applicant's note from Dr.
Ashida is that it did not have a duration on it, which was required as part of the accommodation.
(MOH/SOE, p. 6.) However, Dr. Ashida stated in his report of October 27, 2021 that applicant
had an adverse reaction to a previous hepatitis vaccine and that she could have a reaction to the
Covid-19 vaccine. (Ex. 6, p. 2.) The duration of applicant's requested accommodation would
presumably be the length of time that the Covid-19 vaccine was required by defendant; however,
defendant has not shown that the need for a duration was appropriately communicated to applicant.
(MOH/SOE, p. 7.)
Applicant submitted incomplete accommodation request lacking duration information despite repeated requests from defendant.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The incomplete request and lack of clear communication led to denial of accommodation and supported the finding against good faith personnel action defense.
From the decision · page 5Disability manager Gonzalez testified that the problem with applicant's note from Dr.
Ashida is that it did not have a duration on it, which was required as part of the accommodation.
(MOH/SOE, p. 6.) However, Dr. Ashida stated in his report of October 27, 2021 that applicant
had an adverse reaction to a previous hepatitis vaccine and that she could have a reaction to the
Covid-19 vaccine. (Ex. 6, p. 2.) The duration of applicant's requested accommodation would
presumably be the length of time that the Covid-19 vaccine was required by defendant; however,
defendant has not shown that the need for a duration was appropriately communicated to applicant.
(MOH/SOE, p. 7.)
Defendant did not explore the possibility of remote work as a reasonable accommodation despite evidence it was possible.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This omission showed procedural deficiencies in defendant's handling of the accommodation request, undermining good faith defense.
From the decision · page 5Further, the evidence indicates that applicant filled out a reasonable accommodation form
requesting remote work, such as maintaining and updating student records and vaccines and
referrals, Spanish translations for special education individual education plans over zoom,
translating documents for parents, and providing telephone and follow up support for the Student
and Family Wellness hotline and the LAUSD pass portal. (Ex. 4, p. 6.) Defendant indicated in a
notation from labor relations dated September 9, 2021, that while rare, it would consider remote
work for some positions as part of reasonable accommodations. (Ex. 4, p. 11.) Defendant's notes
stated that it would engage with employees in the interactive process and would consider multiple
factors, such as the availability and feasibility of remote work, in determining if it could offer
remote work as a reasonable accommodation. (Ex. 4, pp.14, 16.) While Gonzalez testified that
remote work was possible if applicant had submitted compliant documents (MOH/SOE, p. 7),
defendant has not shown that it explored the possibility of applicant working remotely.
Defendant's rules on accommodation duration and consideration of remote work were unclear and management personnel may not have followed proper procedures.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These procedural issues supported the conclusion that personnel actions were not lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith.
From the decision · page 6Therefore, defendant has not met its burden that its personnel actions were implemented in
a manner that was lawful, nondiscriminatory and in good faith. The rules regarding the duration
of the accommodation, the consideration of remote work, and evidence as to why some
accommodations were granted are unclear and show that management personnel may not have
followed proper procedures. (See City of Fresno v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. (Romero),
supra, 65 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 1052.)