Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00577/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00577-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Plaintiff
Placer ARC
Defendant
Placer Advocacy Resources & Choices
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PLACER ARC d/b/a PLACER 

ADVOCACY RESOURCES & CHOICES, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-0577-KJM-EFB 

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS 

DATED: December 16, 2015 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 34
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 

2

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 1 

Members of the Jury: Now that you have heard all of the evidence and the 

arguments of the parties, it is my duty to instruct you as to the law of the case. 

A copy of these instructions will be sent with you to the jury room when you 

deliberate. 

You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may say or do as 

indicating that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be. Likewise 

you should not infer from the sign language interpreters’ tone of voice or anything they say or do 

that the sign language interpreters have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict 

should be. 

It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. You, and you 

alone, are the judges of the facts. You must decide what the facts are and then apply those facts 

to the law which I will give to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you 

agree with it or not. And you must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, 

prejudices, or sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the evidence before 

you. You will recall you took an oath to do so. 

In following my instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some 

and ignore others; they are all important. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 34
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 

3

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 2 

The parties entered into certain stipulations or agreements in which they agreed 

that facts could be taken as true without further proof. 

The stipulated facts are as follows: 

1. The EEOC is the federal agency of the United States of America charged with the 

administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title I and Title V of the ADA. It is statutorily 

authorized to bring this lawsuit. 

2. At all relevant times, ARC has been an entity covered by the ADA. 

3. ARC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to the support, education and 

well-being of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. 

4. ARC provides programs to its disabled clients that help support their development 

in important life areas such as personal care, living a healthy lifestyle, finances, visual and 

performing arts, volunteerism, vocational guidance, and higher education. 

5. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, ARC has continuously been a California 

corporation doing business in the State of California and Cities of Auburn, Roseville, and 

Meadow Vista. 

6. Ms. Kazerounian has a disability related to her hearing. Ms. Kazerounian 

disclosed her disability related to her hearing to ARC before she was hired. 

7. In 2004, ARC accepted Ms. Kazerounian as a volunteer in its Auburn program 

under the supervision of Program Director Lindy Hicks. 

8. In 2004, ARC’s Executive Director, Sandra Boudreau, was replaced by Barbara 

Guenther. 

9. By letter dated February 28, 2005, Ms. Kazerounian asked ARC to provide an 

interpreter for trainings that all staff is required to take. 

10. In April 2005, ARC hired Ms. Kazerounian as an Instructional Aide at its Auburn 

facility, still under the supervision of Lindy Hicks. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 34
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 

4

11. During her employment, ARC required Ms. Kazerounian to attend regular and 

mandatory employee meetings to discuss various matters related to her employment, including 

but not limited to rules of conduct and health and safety issues. 

12. During her employment with ARC, there were times ARC met with Ms. 

Kazerounian individually regarding her job duties and performance. 

13. ARC provided certified sign language interpreters from Eaton Interpreting Service 

on a near-weekly basis from April 2005 through early 2008 while Ms. Kazerounian worked at the 

Auburn and Meadow Vista facilities under Program Director Lindy Hicks. 

14. Eaton Interpreting Service charged $50 an hour for its certified ASL interpreters 

between 2005 until August 2007 and Eaton’s general practice was to charge a minimum of two 

hours. 

15. In October 2006, Ms. Kazerounian’s received a raise. 

16. In August 2007, Eaton Interpreting Services raised its rates to $55.00 an hour for 

certified ASL interpreters and Eaton’s general practice was to charge a minimum of two hours. 

17. In February 2008, Ms. Kazerounian became a 1:1 Instructional Aide in ARC’s 

Roseville Adult Center facility under the supervision of Program Director Patti Felland. 

18. In March 2008, ARC hired Sheila Maas as an Instructional Aide and with the 

understanding that she would provide interpretation services to Ms. Kazerounian. 

19. On March 17, 2008, Ms. Kazerounian informed ARC that she believed that 

interpreter services provided by co-worker, Sheila Maas, were unsatisfactory. 

20. On March 25, 2008, Executive Director Barbara Guenther issued a disciplinary 

memo to Ms. Kazerounian. 

21. In a letter to Barbara Guenther dated May 28, 2008, Ms. Kazerounian asked ARC 

to provide a professional and certified sign language interpreter for “any staff meetings and any 

meetings with Guenther and/or the HR manager.” 

22. ARC provided Eaton interpreters for Ms. Kazerounian six times from February 19, 

2008 through the end of May 2010. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 4 of 34
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 

5

23. On December 9, 2008, Ms. Kazerounian filed a complaint of discrimination with 

the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, dually filed with the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging disability discrimination based on a 

denial of reasonable accommodation. 

24. On February 3, 2009, Ms. Kazerounian became in Instructional Aide at ARC 

working 25 hours per week. 

25. One of Ms. Kazerounian’s job duties at ARC was to read the information 

contained in her client files, including reports regarding her client’s behavior. 

26. One of Ms. Kazerounian’s job duties at ARC was to create reports that would be 

placed in her client’s files, including detailing her client’s attitude or behavioral issues. 

27. Ms. Kazerounian interviewed for a position at another employer, Adult Day 

Experience (ADE) one or two weeks prior to her last day of employment at ARC. 

28. Ms. Kazerounian’s last day of employment with ARC was May 28, 2010. 

29. On October 5, 2010, Ms. Kazerounian filed a charge of discrimination with the 

EEOC, alleging constructive discharge. 

30. From June 2010 through June 2011, Ms. Kazerounian worked for ADE. 

31. From July 2012 through July 2013, Ms. Kazerounian worked for Strategies to 

Empower People (STEP). 

32. Elizabeth Marchant worked as ARC’s Deputy Director from April 16, 2007, until 

July of 2013, when she became its Acting Executive Director due to the departure of Barbara 

Guenther. 

33. ARC installed Elizabeth Marchant as the Executive Director in October 2013, and 

she still holds that position. 

34. Patti Felland retired from ARC in December 2012. 

Since the parties have stipulated to these facts and do not dispute them, you are to 

take these facts as true for purposes of this case. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 5 of 34
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 

6

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 3 

You are the sole judges of the evidence in this case and it is up to you to evaluate 

the witnesses and other evidence. You are to perform this duty without bias, sympathy, prejudice, 

or what you think public opinion might be. You must impartially consider all the evidence in the 

case, following the law as stated in these instructions. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 6 of 34
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

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 4 

All parties are equal before the law and a corporation such as Placer ARC is 

entitled to the same fair and conscientious consideration by you as any party. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 7 of 34
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 

8

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 5 

You should not necessarily decide any issue of fact in favor of the side that 

brought more witnesses or evidence at trial. 

The test is which evidence convinces you because it is most believable. 

In deciding contested issues, you should keep in mind who has the burden of proof 

on that issue. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 8 of 34
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 

9

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 6 

The evidence in this case consists of the sworn testimony of the witnesses and all 

exhibits received into evidence. In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony 

and exhibits received into evidence. 

Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what 

the facts are. I will list them for you: 

(1) Arguments and statements by counsel are not evidence. The parties’ 

attorneys are not witnesses. What the attorneys have said in their opening 

statements, or in their closing arguments and at other times, is intended to 

help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as you 

remember them differ from the way they have stated them, your memory of 

them controls. 

(2) Questions and objections by counsel are not evidence. You should not be 

influenced by an objection or by the court’s ruling on it. 

(3) Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that you have been 

instructed to disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered. 

(4) Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not in session is 

not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at 

the trial. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 9 of 34
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 

10

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 7 

There are two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial. A witness testifying to 

having actual knowledge of a fact and documents received in evidence constitute direct evidence. 

Circumstantial evidence is a chain of evidence from which you could find that another fact exists, 

even though no one directly testified as to that fact. 

Therefore, before you decide that a fact has been proven by circumstantial 

evidence, you must consider all the evidence in the light of reason, experience, and common 

sense. 

How much you believe evidence should not depend on whether it is direct or 

circumstantial, but on whether the evidence is trustworthy and reliable. For that reason, you may 

find a fact has been proven by circumstantial evidence if that conclusion seems reasonable to you. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 10 of 34
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 

11

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 8 

In deciding what the facts are, you may have to decide which testimony to believe 

and which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it, or 

none of it. 

In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account any 

number of factors, which may include the following: 

(1) Was the witness able to see, hear or know the things about which the 

witness testified? 

(2) How good is the witness’s memory and is the witness able to testify 

clearly? 

(3) Was the witness’s manner while testifying straightforward and convincing, 

or evasive and unconvincing? 

(4) Did the witness have an interest in the outcome of the case or any bias or 

prejudice concerning anyone or anything that mattered in the case, and if 

so, did that interest or bias affect the testimony? 

(5) How reasonable was the witness’s testimony when you consider it in light 

of all the other evidence in the case? 

(6) Was the witness’s testimony contradicted by what that witness said or did 

at another time, whether those statements are presented through live 

testimony or contained in documents introduced into evidence or by the 

testimony of other believable witnesses or evidence? 

(7) Are there any other factors that bear on believability? 

In deciding whether or not to believe a witness, remember that people sometimes 

forget things or sometimes get confused. 

Also remember that the weight of evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend 

on the number of witnesses who testify about it. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 11 of 34
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 

12

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 9 

Some evidence may have been admitted for a limited purpose only. During this 

trial, when I instructed you that an item of evidence was being admitted for a limited purpose, that 

item of evidence must be considered for that limited purpose and for no other. For example, with 

regard to some exhibits and testimony, I instructed you that you may not consider that evidence as 

proof of the truth of its contents. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 12 of 34
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 

13

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 10 

The following exhibits have been admitted as excerpts from a spiral-bound 

notebook that Placer ARC referred to as a communication book and that Placer ARC provided 

and Ms. Kazerounian used during her employment: 20, 21, 28, 38, 46, 57, 58 and 67. 

To the extent these exhibits contain Ms. Kazerounian’s written statements, they are 

to be considered as her statements describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or 

immediately after she perceived it. 

To the extent the exhibits contain the written statements of a coworker, those 

statements are to be considered as made by an ARC employee on a matter within the scope of the 

coworker’s employment relationship with ARC and while that relationship existed. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 13 of 34
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 

14

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 11 

The following exhibits have been admitted as excerpts from Ms. Kazerounian’s 

journal : 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86 and 87. 

The statements in the journal are to be considered as describing or explaining an 

event or condition, made within a short period of time after Ms. Kazerounian perceived it. 

The statements also may be considered as relating to a startling event or condition, 

made while Ms. Kazerounian was under the stress of excitement that the event or condition 

caused. In particular, the statements may be considered as recording an emotional, sensory, or 

physical condition, such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health. These statements should not be 

considered as statements of memory or belief to prove a fact remembered or believed. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 14 of 34
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 

15

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 12 

Some witnesses, because of education or experience, are permitted to state 

opinions and the reasons for those opinions. 

Opinion testimony should be judged just like any other testimony. You may 

accept it or reject it, and give it as much weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness’s 

education and experience, the reasons given for the opinion, and all the other evidence in the case. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 15 of 34
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 

16

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 13 

Several lay witnesses testified about their opinions during the trial. You may, but 

are not required to accept those opinions. You may give any opinion whatever weight you think 

is appropriate. 

Consider the extent of the witness’s opportunity to perceive the matters on which 

the opinion is based, the reasons the witness gave for the opinion, and the facts or information on 

which the witness relied in forming that opinion. You must decide whether information on which 

the witness relied was true and accurate. You may disregard all or any part of an opinion that you 

find unbelievable, unreasonable, or unsupported by the evidence. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 16 of 34
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 

17

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 14 

Some of the evidence makes reference to a Workers’ Compensation claim. This 

trial does not include a claim for Workers’ Compensation. You may consider evidence that refers 

to the Workers’ Compensation claim but only as background information concerning the claims 

and defenses in this case. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 17 of 34
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 

18

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 15 

In general, the party having the burden of proof on an issue must prove it by a 

“preponderance of the evidence.” The EEOC has the burden of proof on its claims. Placer ARC 

has the burden of proof on its affirmative defenses. 

Proof by a preponderance of the evidence means the evidence is more convincing 

and more probably true than not. If the evidence as to any issue is evenly balanced, your finding 

upon that issue must be against the party who had the burden of proving it. 

In determining whether an issue has been proved by a preponderance of the 

evidence, you should consider all the evidence having to do with that issue regardless of who 

produced it. 

I will instruct you about the burden of proof in connection with the specific claims 

and affirmative defenses. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 18 of 34
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 

19

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 16 

The EEOC has brought a claim of employment discrimination based on the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the ADA, an employer may not discriminate 

against a qualified individual with a disability. The EEOC has the burden of proving the 

following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 

(1) Ms. Kazerounian has a disability within the meaning of the ADA; 

(2) Ms. Kazerounian is a qualified individual; and 

(3) Placer ARC discriminated against Ms. Kazerounian. 

As for the first element, the EEOC and Placer ARC agree that Ms. Kazerounian 

had a recognized disability under the ADA: hearing impairment. You should therefore treat this 

element as having been proved. 

As for the second and third elements, the words “qualified individual,” and 

“discriminated” have specific meanings under the ADA. In addition, Placer ARC has raised 

specific affirmative defenses. These words and defenses are discussed in the instructions 

following this one, namely Instructions numbers 17 through 20. 

After reviewing the remaining instructions, if you find that the EEOC has proven 

the second and third elements, your verdict should be for the EEOC. If, on the other hand, the 

EEOC has failed to prove any of these elements, or if ARC has established an affirmative 

defense, your verdict should be for Placer ARC. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 19 of 34
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 

20

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 17 

As you read above, the EEOC must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 

Ms. Kazerounian is a qualified individual. The term “qualified individual” means an individual 

with a disability who, with or without a reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential 

functions of the employment position that such individual holds. The individual must satisfy the 

requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements of the employment 

position. 

An essential function of an employment position means any one of the 

fundamental job duties of the employment position Ms. Kazerounian holds. It does not include 

the marginal functions that may arise through the course of a job. 

You should consider the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are 

essential. If an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing 

applicants for the job, this description is evidence of the essential functions of the job. 

Other factors that may bear upon whether a job function is essential include, but 

are not limited to: 

(1) Whether the reason the position exists is to perform that function; 

(2) Whether there are a limited number of employees available among whom 

the performance of that job function can be distributed; 

(3) Whether the job function is highly specialized, and the person in that 

particular position is hired for her expertise or ability to perform the 

particular function; 

(4) The amount of time spent performing the job function; 

(5) The consequences of not requiring the individual holding the position to 

perform the function; 

(6) The work experience of past employees who have held the position; and 

(7) The work experience of current employees that hold similar positions. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 20 of 34
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 

21

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 18 

As you read above, the EEOC must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 

Placer ARC discriminated against Ms. Kazerounian. “Discriminated,” as that word is used in the 

ADA, includes when an employer does not make reasonable accommodations to the known 

physical limitations of an otherwise qualified employee, unless the employer can demonstrate by 

a preponderance of the evidence that the accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship 

on the operation of its business. 

The meanings of the words “reasonable accommodations” and “undue hardship” 

are described in the next instructions. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 21 of 34
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 

22

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 19 

To establish the defendant’s duty to provide a “reasonable accommodation,” the 

EEOC must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, both of the following elements: 

(1) Ms. Kazerounian requested of Placer ARC an accommodation due to a 

disability, and 

(2) Placer ARC could have made a reasonable accommodation that would 

have enabled Ms. Kazerounian to perform the essential functions of the job 

or to participate equally in the benefits and privileges of her job. 

Once an employee requests an accommodation, the employer must engage in an 

interactive process with the employee to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation. 

This interactive process requires the employer’s: 

(1) Direct communication between the employer and employee to explore in 

good faith the possible accommodations; 

(2) Consideration of the employee’s request; and 

(3) Offering an accommodation that is reasonable and effective. 

The duty to accommodate is a continuing duty that is not exhausted by one effort. 

The employer’s obligation to engage in the interactive process continues when the employee asks 

for a different accommodation or where the employer is aware that the initial accommodation is 

failing and further accommodation is needed. 

An employer is not obligated to provide an employee the accommodation she 

requests or prefers; the employer need only provide some reasonable accommodation. The 

employer providing the accommodation has the ultimate discretion to choose between effective 

accommodations, and may choose the less expensive accommodation or the accommodation that 

is easier for it to provide. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 22 of 34
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 

23

It is for you to determine whether the accommodation(s) requested by Ms. 

Kazerounian are reasonable. Under the ADA, accommodations by the defendant may include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Job restructuring; 

(2) Part-time or modified work schedule; 

(3) Reassignment to a vacant position; 

(4) Acquisition or modifications of examinations, training materials or 

policies; 

(5) Provision of qualified readers and interpreters; or 

(6) Other similar accommodations for individuals with Ms. Kazerounian’s 

disabilities. 

A reasonable accommodation does not include changing or eliminating any 

essential function of employment, shifting any of the essential functions of the subject 

employment to others, or creating a new position for the employee with a disability. 

If Ms. Kazerounian rejected a reasonable accommodation that could have enabled 

her to perform the essential functions of the position, she cannot be considered qualified for the 

position. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 23 of 34
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 

24

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 20 

A defendant is not required to provide an accommodation that will impose an 

undue hardship on the operation of the defendant’s business. Placer ARC has the burden to 

prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the accommodation(s) Ms. Kazerounian 

requested would have imposed an undue hardship on Placer ARC. 

The term “undue hardship” means an action requiring significant difficulty or 

expense. It takes into account the financial realities of the particular defendant and refers to any 

accommodation that would be unduly costly, extensive, substantial, or disruptive, or that would 

fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the business. 

The factors to be considered in deciding whether an accommodation would cause 

undue hardship include: 

(1) The nature and net cost of the accommodation, accounting for tax credits or 

deductions and other outside funding; 

(2) The overall financial resources of the defendant’s facility or facilities 

involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodation, the number of 

persons employed at such facility, the effect on expenses and resources, or 

the impact otherwise of such accommodation upon the operation of the 

facility; 

(3) The overall financial resources of the defendant, the overall size of the 

business of a defendant with respect to the number of its employees, the 

number, type, and location of its facilities; 

(4) The type of operations the defendant is involved in and the composition, 

structure, and functions of its work force; 

(5) The geographic separateness and administrative or fiscal relationship of the 

facility in question to the defendant, and 

(6) The overall impact of the proposed accommodation on the operation of the 

defendant’s facilities, including the impact on other employees and the 

ability to conduct business. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 24 of 34
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 

25

If you find the accommodation(s) Ms. Kazerounian requested would have imposed 

an undue hardship on the operation of Placer ARC’s business, your verdict should indicate that 

the EEOC has not proven that Placer ARC discriminated against Ms. Kazerounian. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 25 of 34
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 

26

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 21 

The EEOC also claims that Ms. Kazerounian was constructively discharged. This 

is a separate claim. For this claim, the EEOC has the burden of proving the following elements 

by a preponderance of the evidence: 

(1) Ms. Kazerounian has a disability within the meaning of the ADA; 

(2) Ms. Kazerounian was a qualified individual; and 

(3) A reasonable person in Ms. Kazerounian’s position would have felt 

compelled to resign because of intolerable and discriminatory working 

conditions. 

As you read in previous instructions, the EEOC and Placer ARC agree that Ms. 

Kazerounian had a recognized disability under the ADA: hearing impairment. You should 

therefore treat this element as having been proved. 

The term “qualified individual” also has the same meaning described in the 

previous instructions. 

If you find that the EEOC has proven the second and third elements above, your 

verdict should be for the EEOC on this claim. If, on the other hand, the EEOC has failed to prove 

any of these elements, your verdict should be for Placer ARC. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 26 of 34
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 

27

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 22 

It is the duty of the court to instruct you about the measure of damages. By 

instructing you on damages, the court does not mean to suggest for which party your verdict 

should be rendered. 

If you find for the EEOC in either of its claims, you must determine the amount of 

damages, if any. The EEOC has the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the 

evidence. Damages means the amount of money that will reasonably and fairly compensate Ms. 

Kazerounian for any injury or loss you find was caused by Placer ARC. You should consider the 

following: 

(1) Any loss of enjoyment of life experienced; and 

(2) Any mental, physical, and emotional pain and suffering experienced. 

However, damages may not be awarded in connection with the EEOC’s first claim 

for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation if Placer ARC demonstrated, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, its good faith efforts in consultation with Ms. Kazerounian to 

identify and make a reasonable accommodation that would provide her with an equally effective 

opportunity and would not cause an undue hardship on the operation of the business. 

It is for you to determine what damages, if any, have been proved. Your award 

must be based upon evidence and not upon speculation, guesswork, or conjecture. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 27 of 34
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 

28

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 23 

If you find for the EEOC in its claim for constructive discharge, you must 

determine whether Ms. Kazerounian should be awarded back pay and whether Ms. Kazerounian 

mitigated her damages. 

If you find Ms. Kazerounian should be awarded back pay, the court will determine 

the amount. 

Ms. Kazerounian has a duty to use reasonable efforts to mitigate wage losses, if 

any, on the EEOC’s claim for constructive discharge. To mitigate means to avoid or reduce 

damages. To succeed on this defense, Placer ARC has the burden of proving, by a preponderance 

of the evidence: 

(1) There were substantially equivalent jobs available that Ms. Kazerounian 

could have obtained; and 

(2) She failed to use reasonable diligence in seeking a substantially equivalent 

job. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 28 of 34
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 

29

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 24 

If you find for the EEOC on either or both of its claims, you may, but are not 

required to, award punitive damages. The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a 

defendant and to deter similar acts in the future. Punitive damages may not be awarded to 

compensate Ms. Kazerounian. 

The EEOC has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that 

punitive damages should be awarded, and, if so, the amount of any such damages. 

You may award punitive damages only if you find that Placer ARC’s conduct that 

harmed Ms. Kazerounian was malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of her rights. 

Conduct is malicious if it is accompanied by ill will, or spite, or if it is for the purpose of injuring 

Ms. Kazerounian. Conduct is in reckless disregard of Ms. Kazerounian’s rights if, under the 

circumstances, it reflects complete indifference to Ms. Kazerounians’ safety or rights, or if Placer 

ARC acts in the face of a perceived risk that their actions will violate Ms. Kazerounian’s rights 

under federal law. An act or omission is oppressive if Placer ARC injured or damaged or 

otherwise violated the rights of Ms. Kazerounian with unnecessary harshness or severity, such as 

by the misuse or abuse of authority or power or by the taking advantage of some weakness or 

disability or misfortune of Ms. Kazerounian. 

If you find that punitive damages are appropriate, you must use reason in setting 

the amount. Punitive damages, if any, should be in an amount sufficient to fulfill their purposes 

but should not reflect bias, prejudice or sympathy toward any party. In considering the amount of 

any punitive damages, consider the degree of reprehensibility of defendants’ conduct, including 

whether the conduct that harmed Ms. Kazerounian was particularly reprehensible because it also 

caused actual harm or posed a substantial risk of harm to people who are not parties to this case. 

You may not, however, set the amount of any punitive damages in order to punish the defendant 

for harm to anyone other than Ms. Kazerounian in this case. 

In addition, you may consider the relationship of any award of punitive damages to 

any actual harm inflicted on Ms. Kazerounian. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 29 of 34
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 

30

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 25 

During deliberations, you will have to make your decision based on what you 

recall of the evidence. You will not have a transcript of the trial. 

Some of you have taken notes during the trial. Whether or not you took notes, you 

should rely on your own memory of what was said. Notes are only to assist your memory. You 

should not be overly influenced by the notes. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 30 of 34
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 

31

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 26 

When you begin your deliberations, you should elect one member of the jury as 

your presiding juror. That person will preside over the deliberations and speak for you here in 

court. 

You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors to reach agreement if you 

can do so. Your verdict must be unanimous. 

Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you should do so only after you 

have considered all of the evidence, discussed it fully with the other jurors, and listened to the 

views of your fellow jurors. 

Do not hesitate to change your opinion if the discussion persuades you that you 

should. Do not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right. 

It is important that you attempt to reach a unanimous verdict but, of course, only if 

each of you can do so after having made your own conscientious decision. Do not change an 

honest belief about the weight and effect of the evidence simply to reach a verdict. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 31 of 34
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 

32

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 27 

Because you must base your verdict only on the evidence received in the case and 

on these instructions, I remind you that you must not be exposed to any other information about 

the case or to the issues it involves. Except for discussing the case with your fellow jurors during 

your deliberations: 

Do not communicate with anyone in any way and do not let anyone else 

communicate with you in any way about the merits of the case or anything to do 

with it. This includes discussing the case in person, in writing, by phone or 

electronic means, via email, text messaging, or any Internet chat room, blog, 

website or other feature. This applies to communicating with your family 

members, your employer, the media or press, and the people involved in the trial. 

If you are asked or approached in any way about your jury service or anything 

about this case, you must respond that you have been ordered not to discuss the 

matter and to report the contact to the court. 

Do not read, watch, or listen to any news or media accounts or commentary about 

the case or anything to do with it; do not do any research, such as consulting 

dictionaries, searching the Internet or using other reference materials; and do not 

make any investigation or in any other way try to learn about the case on your 

own. 

The law requires these restrictions to ensure the parties have a fair trial based on 

the same evidence that each party has had an opportunity to address. A juror who violates these 

restrictions jeopardizes the fairness of these proceedings, and a mistrial could result that would 

require the entire trial process to start over. If any juror is exposed to any outside information, 

please notify the court immediately. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 32 of 34
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 

33

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 28 

If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you 

may send a note through the bailiff, signed by your presiding juror or by one or more members of 

the jury. No member of the jury should ever attempt to communicate with me except by a signed 

writing; I will communicate with any member of the jury on anything concerning the case only in 

writing, or here in open court. If you send out a question, I will consult with the parties before 

answering it, which may take some time. You may continue your deliberations while waiting for 

the answer to any question. Remember that you are not to tell anyone—including me—how the 

jury stands, numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a unanimous verdict or have 

been discharged. Do not disclose any vote count in any note to the court. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 33 of 34
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 

34

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 29 

A verdict form has been prepared for you. After you have reached unanimous 

agreement on a verdict, your presiding juror will fill in the form that has been given to you, sign 

and date it, and advise the court that you are ready to return to the courtroom. 

Case 2:13-cv-00577-KJM-EFB Document 195 Filed 12/18/15 Page 34 of 34