Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Milan v. City of Holtville: The Mandatory Interactive Process is Exactly That.

By Alex Hernaez on July 19, 2010
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Employers must provide reasonable accommodation to disabled employees. That’s the law. And the law is neither convenient nor efficient. But employers do not need to provide any requested reasonable accommodation. As a general matter, employers can choose between equally effective accommodations. Moreover, employers may make the determination that no reasonable accommodation is possible. For example, in Milan, the Plaintiff suffered a workplace injury on September 10, 2002. Then, on March 30, 2004, she “received a letter from the city terminating her employment.  The letter stated that based on [her doctor’s] evaluation, the city had concluded that Milan could not return to her customary position and there was no job within the city which she could reasonably perform.” 

Plaintiff sued alleging the failure to make reasonable accommodation. At trial, the City contended that it met its obligations under the FEHA because “Milan had never sought an accommodation of her disability, and that in any event no accommodation was possible because she could not perform the essential functions of her job.” On appeal, the Court accepted the City’s argument:

Section 12940 [of the FEHA], subdivision (n), does not permit an employee to ignore notice his or her employer believes he or she is not fit to work, be absent from work for more than 18 months, and make no attempt to communicate with the employer about his or her desire to continue working.  Milan’s apparent response to the workers’ compensation administrator or workers’ compensation appeals board was not adequate because in the end Milan accepted rehabilitation and retraining benefits offered by the administrator.  In this context, good faith required that Milan directly express to the city her interest in retaining her job.  Only then would an obligation to engage with her with respect to possible accommodations arise.

The lesson here is simple: both parties must put the “active” in the “interactive process.” And, if an employee unreasonably refuses to communicate, the employer may, under the right circumstances, take unilateral action.

  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    California Employment Law
  • Organization:
    Fox Rothschild LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo