that the employer must reasonably accommodate and have a good faith interactive process even for a perceived disability and the court held in a case of that given us a copy of that opinion i'm sorry or have you given us a copy of the opinion no your  i would learn a lot of friday afternoon if you tell the other side about it this morning no your honor i learned about her friday afternoon why did you tell the other side about it this morning there's no reason it's not really good practice to spring a case on another lawyer and the information i had on it one of the other charities told me about it late friday afternoon in this case we're dealing with both fair and reasonable and you might ask well what does the law have to do  fair and reasonable in this case the answer is everything because the law that we're dealing with here is not the american with disability act but it's called the fair employment and housing act and so therefore we have to be fair in this part of follow it but if it's not good for the employee then we can ignore it and go beyond that and so california specifically points out that we have to go specifically in favor of the employee wherever possible and as part of that they say not only does the employer have to accommodate but the essence is that the combination has to be reasonable in this case i don't believe that the that mr ba qualls had a disability i think they perceive him to have a disability well let me read you one line from down in the in the truck or plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to respond to plaintiff's request for information and was never treated for stress related injuries it seemed that when your client was asked for information about this there was no response is that right that is correct your honor and cousin how do you dispel how do you create the idea that that the reason given is a pretext if you fail to respond for what seems to be a reasonable request for information i will point that out to the court your honor he had only file the worker's comp claim relating to the stress he knows that he had never taken any time off work because of the stress so how reasonable was it to require him to get a doctor's release from stress when he no doctor put him out for stress he only saw a chiropractor how reasonable was it to say a chiropractor needs to release him for stress but the point is he never responded period never gave any information that you're trying to cobble together today as there is a reason that they are pointing out to the representative the question was well did you do this did you do that we're making a judgment she said i couldn't make a judgment and the information so how can you charge the employer with this information you're giving us and they don't have the information they had this is the only information they had as far as stress was that he filed the worker's comp claim it a worker's comp claim no doctor it said that he couldn't work they know on the day they file the worker's comp claim that he had always worked with the stress the stress was a medical condition but it was not a disability so they're saying we need a doctor's note to prove you can come back because of a perceived disability which you never lost any time from work probably doesn't respond at all and they send him up they say to him in a letter they send a second letter third letter he doesn't do anything but yes he did and i think what might he do that would be  he tried to keep contacting her missing and did not call he called her she did not call him back he she did not return his subsequent phone calls he kept calling her her and she didn't call him back that's not reasonable accommodation if she had met with him and and discussed it with him which is what they're required to do he would have been able to show her i never lost any time from work that with him face to face is i don't i don't believe so but in pinions deposition but i'm just ok i'm just reading from her declaration now if you have a place that contradicts that her declaration with respect to summary judgment is that in dispute that because that's it odds with what you just told me that he never talked to anybody in ferguson and he tried to talk to somebody that nobody would talk to  she had to confer with other people and would call her and call him back that's part of her deposition pinioned did not call banquo's back neither did pinioned return back will subsequent telephone calls that that certainly wasn't reasonable chiropractor give him a note to release him to return to work because of a stress disability of which he was never put out work in the first place totally reasonable  that the bottom line is could be a jury in this case have the side that they did not provide reasonable accommodation this was a motion for summary judgment can we look at any of these facts and say a jury could have decided that they did not provide reasonable accommodation and that's the only issue before they're only argument reasonable accommodation that they did they  that's basically stipulated here the premise that the california public court ruled and my green case that he that the employee doesn't have to prove he's a qualified individual and the the job that's exactly what the employer sent to him we you have to prove you can do a job for which you never went out on disability but if the supreme court of california upholds the decision in the green case he would never have had to prove that in the first place it would only be the employer would he would only have to show that he had a disability or perceived disability and they took an adverse action then it would be the employer's duty to here to two claims one was the thing of which was the actual disability what was the stress right what was the stress which says i want compensation for medical if i need medical in the future he never he never claimed  sleep disorder nervous pain on worker's time right but he never lost any time because that he had a medical condition of stress there's no question about that yeah i can see that you had a medical condition many many many people have medical conditions for which they are not disabled and even if they end if you perceive the person to be disabled under the gulf whole case you have to at least offer them reasonable accommodation have a good faith interactive process it wasn't reasonable accommodation and it wasn't a good faith interactive process at least not to the point that a judge could say as a matter of law without a jury being able to decide the issue if your client was that you might have a good argument but that puts the burden i understand you're out of but that puts the burden on him to respond to something for which he's not claiming in the first place to write an opinion pretty much that says that if you were asked for information employee any employee to provide proof that they can do it job when they never claimed they couldn't do the job is it reasonable to ask an employee to prove that they don't have a disability when they never claimed the disability in the first place you're asking him to prove he can come back to work when he never claimed because of stress when he never claimed that any time that he couldn't do the job because of stress that's not a reasonable request of therefore it's not yes in this particular case it is not reasonable to say that to the employee it could be in many cases especially in a case where the employee said i have to go off because of the disability and then would be reasonable for the employee to say well fine well show was that you can come back and if you can come back what accommodation you need but not when you say i didn't go offer that disability in the first place release either one will do or it also said if he intends to pursue his non orthopedic claims he needs to provide information from the appropriate medical care professional so the chef america can determine whether or not a reasonable accommodation can be made said that if you grow up this claim he could come back to work that was one part of the letter you have letter i have it in the excerpts of around the letter it says that he he will not be allowed to return to work until applicant has been released either in modified position or released to his usual and customary position regarding alleging alleging injuries of course that the afghan wishes to withdraw any non orthopedic complaints from his application then a medical release of those injuries would not be necessary so you are saying that they just wanted to know can you come back to work do you have fogle helps to come back to work one way or the other that's correct we have if you drop your claim that would be enough to  bill of health well if if he's no longer claiming that he's disabled because of the stress related injuries he's filed a worker's compensation action in which in fact he's claiming that he is permanently  temporarily disable due to the stress related injuries and that's undisputed that he in the litigated worker's comp action he's claiming that he's disabled because of the stress well as everyone who files the workers compensation  growth well in this context because of the things he took off because of his finger that's correct so we have an industrial accident involving mr bank wells we have in the wake of that industrial accident  two workers compensation claims filed one for the finger which is the result of the industrial accident one for all of these host of stress related injuries which could very well have been a lot of finger industry who came to work in the normal course every day information adding to do with the claim that he's made because as i read the california law the employer then would be aware that there's a possible issue with this employee and they would be triggered to make sure the whether a reasonable accommodation would be needed as to that employee and that's essentially what was happening here but the employer was greeted with silence at every turn to try and first determine whether or not a reasonable accommodation was necessary for mr bank wells to come back to work and really the crux of the matter is we have mr frank wells represented by counsel with regard to these injuries chef america deals primarily with his council they have a representative employee in front of them they don't cross examine mr bank wells is that in a way that might perhaps compromise his worker's compensation claim they do tell him in face to face meetings and on a telephone meeting what it what type of information he needs to provide to chef america but there's also three letters and one telephone call to his attorney his legal representative who's representing him with regard to these injuries and there's absolutely no response have there been any response than chef america could have responded to that and there could have been and the interactive good faith process there could have been possibly a reasonable accommodation but mr bank wells estimate is half what it was or anything that could fall into the category of a non respon in response to your letter we don't have to respond because you have a duty to interactively this term and accommodations for our client like that there was nothing do you have any information as to whether there's anything contradicting the fact that he knew there within this union and she told him i'm glad your fingers fixed just let us know if you're ok on the stress to return to work there's nothing contradicting that that mr bankrolls the physician he also discusses the fact that he had a conversation with mr bean you know he describes it is that she was vague but he does say that yes she did tell me that we needed to provide her with additional medical information and that's an excerpt is the only reason that they need more information because he claimed he temporary period of disability on his stress related injury the reason that they need more finger and you might not be disabled but they pay you a certain amount regrettably you know tiny amounts for various injuries right there is trying to figure out what's the information that the employer has that makes them say we don't know if we clear you we have the worker's compensation claim itself which in which he's claiming this whole host of stress related injuries you know  i claim that i've had these injuries since one thousand nine hundred nine i worked without incident that's putting aside the fact that he cut his finger off in two thousand and two but in california the employer has a very strenuous duty when it when a possible employer employee injuries brought to their attention and this is been brought to the employer's attention now it's not a clean bill of health that was being looked for it was any information as to what his status w a way to get information on the worker's compensation carrier well putting oneself into the employer's shoes when they when they have an employee who's claiming all of these problems the employer has a responsibility that the employee when the employee comes back to work can work safely for himself and also for his co employees and it certainly can't be the law that the employer should you are completely able to do this job even though you've never told an employer that i can't work well i would i would take issue in your question or saying that i'm completely able to do this job i would say that the unless you either drop your claim or you satisfy us with medical certificates that you're able to work even though the employer is perfectly willing to come to work at all times while i believe that employer has a duty once once it's known that the employee has an injury to engage in the interactive good faith process and that's what jeff america was trying to do under the fee h i read it now that is what the requirement is on point when the employers are aware that there is a potential injury to an employer a disabilit