Horn v. Safeway Inc.

Background

Debra Horn brought disability-employment claims against Safeway under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), along with a retaliation claim under California Labor Code section 1102.5. She alleged that Safeway failed to follow workplace restrictions and accommodations recommended by her doctors, including access to a stool and limits on checking for no more than two hours at a time and four hours total per day. She also alleged disability discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and failures to prevent discrimination and engage in the required accommodation discussions.

Safeway moved for partial summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact important to the claim and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Safeway argued that various claims were barred in part by filing deadlines, that Horn’s remaining accommodation claims failed on the undisputed facts, and that she could not recover punitive damages. Horn conceded that the continuing-violation doctrine did not apply to her ADA discrimination, retaliation, or accommodation claims, and she conceded that she was not entitled to punitive damages.

Analysis and rulings

The court rejected Safeway’s argument that Horn’s FEHA accommodation claim was partly time-barred because her restrictions had allegedly been accommodated while Amadeo Olivira was store director. The court found that the evidence did not establish how long Olivira held that position and that Horn had presented evidence of recurring problems with access to a stool and limits on her checking duties before and after Michael Vasquez became store director. The court therefore denied summary judgment on the argument that Claim Seven, the FEHA failure-to-accommodate claim, was partly time-barred.

For the same reasons, the court denied summary judgment on Claim Eight, Horn’s FEHA claim alleging failure to engage in the interactive process. The court also denied Safeway’s request for summary judgment on the merits of Horn’s FEHA and ADA failure-to-accommodate claims. The court concluded that a jury could interpret Safeway’s 2012 modified-work offer as a commitment to limit Horn’s checking time, or could find that the offer did not provide a reasonable accommodation if it merely promised that Safeway would do its best. The evidence about the stool also left a factual dispute about whether managers knew it was frequently unavailable and failed to correct the problem.

Because Horn conceded that the continuing-violation doctrine did not apply to her ADA discrimination and retaliation claims, the court granted summary judgment on Claims Nine and Twelve as to conduct before July 13, 2016. The court granted summary judgment on Claim Eleven, ADA harassment, as to conduct before July 13, 2016, for the same reasons it rejected the continuing-violation theory for the FEHA harassment claims. It granted summary judgment on Claim Ten, the ADA accommodation claim, to the extent it was based on conduct before July 13, 2016, and denied summary judgment as to later conduct.

Finally, the court granted summary judgment for Safeway on Horn’s request for punitive damages and dismissed that request. The order states that Safeway’s motion was granted in part and denied in part.