In March 2009 Sally Wycoff was working for Paradise Unified school District as a cafeteria worker for approximately four hours per day, and as a food services manager for 3 hours 15 minutes per day. The job required the ability to “stand, stoop, reach and bend,” the ability to “grasp and manipulate small objects,” and to “lift, push and/or pull objects which may approximate 50 pounds and may occasionally weigh up to 100 pounds. She reported to her employer that she had sustained a right shoulder injury caused by repetitive use associated with her job and completed a workers’ compensation claim form.

The employer admitted the injury. Wycoff had shoulder surgery on July 21, 2009. The District hired a substitute to fill Wycoff’s position as a cafeteria worker. A series of letters followed discussing her sick leave benefits, and other rights to illness and accident leave for employees who are part of classified employment. Wycoff met with several District employees to discuss her options in late October 2009. She was offered part-time work as a food services manager, which would not require pulling, pushing, or lifting. However, she would not receive health insurance for part-time work. She was also told she could ask the school board to extend her leave. During these discussions, Wycoff brought up the possibility of taking early retirement, which was something one of her friends had suggested. She ultimately applied for early retirement after her other efforts to return to work were unsuccessful.

Wycoff then filed a complaint against District alleging the following causes of action: (1) physical disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (2) Retaliation because of a physical disability and because a workers’ compensation claim was filed; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (5) negligent supervision; and (6) failure to accommodate a physical disability. Following District’s successful demurrer to the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action, the trial court dismissed those causes of action. Wycoff pleaded three causes of action that survived demurrer: (1) disability discrimination, (2) retaliation, and (3) failure to accommodate a physical condition. With regard to those three, the District’s summary judgment motion was granted by the trial court and her case was dismissed. The dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in the unpublished case of Wycoff v. Paradise Unified School Dist. CA3.

The trial court found that District offered and provided reasonable accommodation. The court also found that Wycoff’s immediate supervisor averred Wycoff was unable to do the basic and essential job duties of a cafeteria worker, and that there was no vacant position and no accommodation that would have allowed Wycoff to return to her position as a cafeteria worker without making other people do Wycoff’s job or hiring another employee to assist Wycoff in doing her job.

Wycoff’s release for work from her physician, dated October 22, 2009, placed the following restrictions on her ability to work: “no overhead work with right arm and no lifting over 20 lbs.” Wycoff’s immediate supervisor stated that with those restrictions, Wycoff was not able to do the basic and essential job duties of a cafeteria worker, and that she was aware of no accommodation that would have made it possible for Wycoff to perform that job. Wycoff admitted in her deposition that “most if not all of [her] essential job functions were problematic for [her] right shoulder . . . .” She admitted there was no way she could have returned to work in her prior capacity in October 2009. She stated that at the time of the deposition (June 9, 2011) she still could not do the work that she did five years prior, and that it was still painful when she engaged in repetitive lifting, pushing, and pulling. At that time (June 9, 2011) she was still not allowed to do overhead work with her right arm or lift more than 20 pounds. Given this undisputed evidence, there was no requirement that District do more to ascertain Wycoff’s ability to perform her job. Under such circumstances there was no evidence that the District failed to participate in the interactive process as required by law.