Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00798/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00798-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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: (415) 490-9000

Facsimile: (415) 490-9001

Attorneys for Defendant

AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

KAREN SCHELLER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC., a 

foreign corporation, CINDY WOOLSTON, an 

individual, and DOES 1-25, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:08-CV-00798-OWW-DLB

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

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. 

/ / /

Case 1:08-cv-00798-OWW -DLB Document 94 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 3
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:08-cv-00798-OWW -DLB Document 94 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 3
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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 DEAC_Signature-END:

emm0d64h

Case 1:08-cv-00798-OWW -DLB Document 94 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 3