Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03846/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03846-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CICILY BRANCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03846-DMR 

ORDER TO PROVIDE 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

California courts have held that the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), California 

Government Code section 12940(n), “allows an independent cause of action for employees whose 

employers fail to engage in the interactive process,” without “requir[ing] proof of the elements

required by the [Americans with Disabilities Act].” See Wysinger v. Automobile Club of S. Cal., 

157 Cal. App. 4th 413, 425 (2007); A.M. v. Albertsons, LLC, 178 Cal. App. 4th 455, 463-64 

(2009) (“[t]he failure to accommodate and the failure to engage in the interactive process are 

separate, independent claims involving different proof of facts.”). 

However, this lawsuit asserts federal rather than state law claims. Under federal law, 

whether plaintiffs may maintain a separate cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive 

process, or whether it is subsumed in a failure to accommodate claim, is less clear. See, e.g., 

Rehling v. City of Chicago, 207 F.3d 1009, 1015-1016 (7th Cir. 2000); Walter v. United Airlines, 

Inc., 232 F.3d 892, *4 (4th Cir. 2000).

The court orders the parties to submit simultaneous further briefing no more than ten pages 

in length by July 15, 2015. The parties shall address whether Plaintiff may assert a cause of action 

under the Rehabilitation Act for Defendant’s alleged failure to engage in the interactive process in 

good faith, separate from her claim that Defendant failed to provide her with a reasonable 

accommodation. If the party contends that federal law permits Plaintiff to state a separate, 

Case 4:14-cv-03846-DMR Document 38 Filed 07/01/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

standalone claim for failure to engage in the interactive process, the party shall also address the 

question of when that claim accrued, and whether Plaintiff timely exhausted her administrative 

remedies regarding that claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2015

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-03846-DMR Document 38 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 2