Scheller v. American Medical Response, Inc. et al

Filing 94

ORDER RE: Plaintiff Karen Scheller's 43 Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant American Medical Response, Inc.'s 49 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 8/13/2010. (Gaumnitz, R)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Scott M. Mahoney (State Bar No. 122254) Jennifer K. Achtert (State Bar No. 197263) FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2340 San Francisco, CA 94111-3712 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION Case No.: 1:08-CV-00798-OWW-DLB Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC., a foreign corporation, CINDY WOOLSTON, an individual, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF KAREN SCHELLER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCKET NO. 43) AND DEFENDANT AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCKET NO. 49) Date: November 23, 2009 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 3 Hon. Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge Complaint Filed: February 20, 2008 Trial Date: January 20, 2010

KAREN SCHELLER,

Plaintiff Karen Scheller moved for summary adjudication on her first cause of action, for disability discrimination, only. (Docket No. 43.) Plaintiff argues that she has established a prima facie case of discrimination and no triable issues of fact remain as to: (1) AMR's refusal to engage in the interactive process; and (2) AMR's failure to accommodate Plaintiff's disability. ///
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ORDER RE: CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 08-CV-00798 OWW DLB 1 SanFrancisco 112675.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant American Medical Response, Inc., moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of all six causes of action. (Docket No. 49.) Specifically, AMR argues that Plaintiff's discrimination claim fails because she could not perform the essential functions of her job, with or without a reasonable accommodation. AMR also asserts that Plaintiff was accommodated pursuant to her leave of absence and that AMR met its "interactive process" obligations. AMR also asserts other arguments on the other causes of action. The cross-motions were fully briefed, and the Court heard oral argument. (Docket Nos. 44-48, 50-56, 58 (Supporting Documents); 60-71 (Oppositions); 75-82 (Replies); 88-89 (Supplemental Briefing)). Now, therefore, good cause appearing and for the reasons set out in full in the Memorandum Decision re: Plaintiff Karen Scheller's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant American Medical Response, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 90 (July 28, 2010), the Court rules as follows: 1. AMR's motion for summary adjudication on the first claim for disability

discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff and AMR's motions for summary adjudication regarding the alleged

failure to accommodate Plaintiff's disability under the FEHA are DENIED. 3. Plaintiff and AMR's motions for summary adjudication regarding the alleged

failure to engage in the interactive process under the FEHA are DENIED. 4. AMR's motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiff's second claim for age

discrimination under the FEHA is GRANTED. 5. AMR's motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiff's third cause of action for

wrongful termination is GRANTED. 6. AMR's motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiff's fourth cause of action

for retaliation in violation of the FEHA is GRANTED. /// ///
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ORDER RE: CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 08-CV-00798 OWW DLB 2 SanFrancisco 112675.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DEAC_Signature-END:

7.

AMR's motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiff's fifth claim for breach of

contract and sixth claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is GRANTED. 8. AMR's motion on Plaintiff's request for punitive damages is RESERVED for

motion in limine.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:

August 13, 2010

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

emm0d64h

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ORDER RE: CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 08-CV-00798 OWW DLB 3 SanFrancisco 112675.1