To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: Shirvanyan v. Los Angeles Community. College District, No. B296593, 2020 WL 7706321 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2020) Summary: The availability of a reasonable accommodation is an element of a claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for failure to engage in the interactive process. The Workers’ Compensation Act does not bar emotional distress damages where those damages arise from an employer’s failure to provide reasonable accommodations or engage in an interactive process, rather than because of a physical injury suffered at work. Facts: Plaintiff Anahit Shirvanyan, an assistant kitchen worker for Defendant Los Angeles Community College District, was diagnosed with nerve damage and carpal tunnel in her wrist in 2014. She notified her supervisors of her carpal tunnel and wrist pain and often sought help from coworkers performing her kitchen tasks. Her supervisors never altered Plaintiff’s job duties or gave Plaintiff time off to address her wrist issue. In December 2015, Plaintiff injured her shoulder opening the door of a dishwasher and was placed off work by her doctor until March 2016. Thereafter, she did not return to work and did not provide any further paperwork requesting an extension of her leave. Plaintiff sued Defendant alleging disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to provide reasonable accommodation, all in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). She alleged that she developed a depressive disorder as a result of Defendant’s conduct. At the close of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief, Defendant moved for nonsuit, arguing that Plaintiff failed to prove that there was an available and effective reasonable accommodation that could have been made at the times Plaintiff alleged Defendant failed to engage in the interactive process. The court rejected Defendant’s motion, holding that the availability of a reasonable accommodation is not an element of an interactive process claim, and instructed the jury accordingly. The jury rejected Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim, but found in Plaintiff’s favor on her interactive process and reasonable accommodation claims and awarded economic and noneconomic damages. Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that (1) the evidence presented did not support the availability of a reasonable accommodation during the relevant time frame, and (2) the damages arose from injuries at work and were thus recoverable only through workers’ compensation. The court denied the motion, and Defendant appealed.