The issue of whether summary judgment was properly granted as to Prilliman is more complex because of the fact that there is evidence in our record that as late as September 1995, or over a year after his grounding, Prilliman was functioning well within normal limits as to intellectual ability and motor skills. The inference arises that Prilliman was capable of performing some type of non-flight position, and may have qualified for an alternative position with United. However, our record also indicates that Prilliman was receiving social security benefits for disability. Respondents contend that the assertion of disability for the purpose of obtaining social security benefits constitutes a judicial estoppel and precludes Prilliman from arguing in his FEHA case that he was capable of performing an alternative position with United. We also find without merit respondents' suggestion that the disabled employee must first come forward and request a specific accommodation before the employer has a duty to investigate such accommodation.
Information here is correct at the time it is posted.
Case decisions cited here may be reversed. Please do not rely on this information without consulting an attorney first. All rights reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.