(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 413
Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six · No. B191028 · Decided November 29, 2007
01. Facts
Guy Wysinger sued his former employer, the Automobile Club of Southern California (ACSC), for various discrimination claims under the FEHA (157 Cal.App.4th at p. 418). A jury found ACSC liable for failing to engage in the interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation for Wysinger’s disability, but found ACSC not liable on the separate claim that it failed to provide a reasonable accommodation; the jury also found ACSC had unlawfully retaliated against Wysinger for filing an age-discrimination claim and awarded substantial damages, including $1 million in punitive damages (id. at p. 418).
02. Procedural posture
ACSC appealed, arguing the interactive-process and failure-to-accommodate verdicts were inconsistent. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the verdicts were consistent and supported by substantial evidence (157 Cal.App.4th at p. 418).
03. Issue
Whether a claim for failure to engage in the interactive process is independent of a claim for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation — such that a defendant can be liable on the former even when the jury finds for it on the latter.
Holding
Failure to engage in the interactive process is a separate FEHA violation requiring different proof from failure to provide a reasonable accommodation; the two findings are not inconsistent, so a jury may hold an employer liable for failing to engage in the interactive process even while finding no failure to accommodate (id. at p. 418).
05. Reasoning
The court explained that the interactive-process duty and the accommodation duty protect distinct interests and turn on different facts: one concerns the employer’s good-faith participation in a dialogue to identify accommodations, the other concerns whether a reasonable accommodation existed and was denied. A jury could rationally find the employer breached the process duty without finding it denied an available accommodation, so the verdicts were reconcilable. Substantial evidence also supported the retaliation finding and the punitive award.
Practice Pointer
Wysinger lets plaintiff’s counsel plead and try the interactive-process claim as a stand-alone theory, not merely as an adjunct to failure-to-accommodate. Request separate verdict forms, and argue the employer’s failure to engage in a good-faith dialogue as an independent wrong — a path to liability (and, as here, punitive damages) even if the accommodation claim does not land.
06. Open questions
Wysinger confirmed the independence of the interactive-process claim but, read with Scotch v. Art Institute of California, leaves a tension practitioners must navigate: the process claim is independent, yet recovery still ultimately depends on identifying an available reasonable accommodation.
Cite this entry
Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 413.
“these jury findings require different proofs and are not inconsistent.” — 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 418
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].