Opinion ID: 705181
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: mobil's statutory defenses under the feha

Text: 82 Jimeno claims that the district court erred in not granting its motion to alter judgment to find liability as a matter of law because Mobil did not meet its burden of production on its affirmative defenses under the FEHA. Mobil claims to have established two alternative defenses pursuant to the FEHA: (1) that state or federal law required Mobil to act as it did in this case (the required by law defense) and (2) that allowing Jimeno to continue working would have posed a danger to Jimeno because he would have been unable to perform his essential job functions, after reasonable accommodation, without an imminent and substantial degree of risk (the danger to self/no reasonable accommodation defense). Cal.Code Regs. tit. 2, Sec. 7293.8(a), (c). 12 83 Mobil claims that the Workers' Compensation Act required it to handle Jimeno's condition as it did. This required by law defense thus duplicates the workers' compensation exclusivity defense and will not be considered further here. 84 We have interpreted the danger to self/no reasonable accommodation defense to have a narrow scope that requires the employer to offer more than mere conclusions. Ackerman v. Western Elec. Co., 860 F.2d 1514, 1519 (9th Cir.1988). The defense requires that the employee face an imminent and substantial degree of risk in performing the essential functions of the job. Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. General Dynamics, Inc., FEHC Dec. No. 90-08, 1990 WL 312873,  7 (Cal.F.E.H.C., May 31, 1990). Termination to protect an employee from harm that is merely potential is not included: 85 [I]t is no defense to assert that a handicapped individual has a condition or a disease with a future risk, so long as the condition or disease does not presently interfere with his or her ability to perform the job in a manner that will not immediately endanger the handicapped individual ... and the individual is able to safely perform the job over a reasonable length of time. 86 Cal.Code Regs. tit. 2, Sec. 7293.8(e). 87 In a case similar to Jimeno's, the Fair Employment and Housing Commission found that prophylactic preclusion from tankerman duties was appropriate for a seaman with recurrent low back strains and a history of severe degenerative disc herniation, because medical testimony established that further injury was inevitable and a daily risk. Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Harbor Tug and Barge Co., FEHC Dec. No. 92-02, 1992 WL 223888,  13 (Cal.F.E.H.C., February 20, 1992). In Jimeno's case, Dr. London's assessment may support a similar evaluation to establish this prong of the danger to self defense. However, the employer must also show that there were no available reasonable means of accommodation which would, without undue hardship to [the employer], have allowed complainant to perform the essential job functions ... without danger to himself. Harbor Tug, 1992 WL 223888 at  14. As noted supra, reasonable accommodation includes: 88 Job restructuring, reassignment or transfer, part-time or modified work schedules, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, the provision of readers or interpreters, and other similar actions. 89 Cal.Code Regs. tit. 2, Sec. 7293.9(a)(2). Within the reasonableness and undue hardship limits, the regulations contemplate not only that employers remove obstacles that are in the way of the progress of the disabled, but that they actively restructure their way of doing business in order to accommodate the needs of their disabled employees. Sargent v. Litton Systems, Inc., 841 F.Supp. 956, 961 (N.D.Cal.1994). 90 The evidence is mixed on this issue. As already discussed, the CBA establishes a bidding process for employees who wish to change job positions. After placing Jimeno on medical leave, Mobil did offer vocational rehabilitation training as part of its assumed responsibilities under workers' compensation provisions. Mobil's response to the complaint before the Department of Fair Employment and Housing asserts that Mobil performed a second job analysis on another position, but concluded that the job required the same weight lifting and bending activities as his mechanic position. 91 On the other hand, Mobil did not respond to Jimeno's letter requesting consideration for a supervisory position, even though the evidence suggests that Mobil had initiated an evaluation process for that purpose before Jimeno's back pain episode. Also, Mobil's Long Term Disability Plan suggests an unexplored possibility of providing other work to employees in some situations, because it indicates that [f]or the first 24 months, disability means complete inability to perform the duties of employee's regularly assigned work with Mobil Oil or work with Mobil which entitles employee to comparable pay. (emphasis added). Note that the seniority preservation provisions of the CBA apply when an incapacitated employee has been transferred or temporarily assigned to other jobs, again suggesting that Mobil has managerial flexibility to take such actions to accommodate employees with disabilities. 13 Furthermore, Mobil's reliance on a policy of routinely terminating employees with work restrictions based on the mere assertion of inability to modify the job description, absent supportive evidence, is facially inadequate. Compare Ackerman, 860 F.2d 1514, 1520 (9th Cir.1988) (finding that the employer's assertions that no accommodations were available were speculative where the record does not indicate that the Company tried any of these means of accommodation with Ackerman), with Harbor Tug, 1992 WL 223888 at  14 (finding that evidence of rotating assignments and equally strenuous duties on all types of barge supported the employer's defense of inability to accommodate) and General Dynamics, 1990 WL 312873, at  9 (finding that evidence of a small custodial operation that could not accomplish its tasks if one member were placed on permanent light duty supported the employer's inability to accommodate). 92 Because Mobil has presented sufficient evidence to present a genuine issue of material fact but has failed to establish this defense as a matter of law, we also remand this issue to the district court for jury determination.