Anthony White worked as a custodian for Los Angeles World Airports, a department of the City of Los Angeles. In November 2005, while off duty, he sustained several gunshot wounds to his left leg. He was briefly hospitalized and took several medical leaves of absence to recover from his injury. He returned to work in May 2006 and was assigned to perform light duty tasks in a warehouse.

At the end of August 2006, White took another medical leave of absence which lasted for approximately two years. According to one of White’s physicians, White was suffering from “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Intractable Pain secondary to gunshot wound in 2005.”

In May 2008, during his leave, White was arrested in Arizona and was apparently charged with nine felony counts relating to identity theft and fraud. When White returned to work in 2008, his prior position (day shift custodial supervisor) was not available and the airport placed him in an available position at the same level on the graveyard shift.

White did not like working the night shift and requested a transfer to the day shift as a reasonable accommodation for disabilities related to his 2005 injury. However, because White failed to provide the airport with any viable explanation why working the day shift rather than the night shift would impact his disability, the airport denied his reasonable accommodation request.

White resigned from his position in 2010 on the same day he began serving a sentence on two felony charges in Arizona. He subsequently filed the present lawsuit against the airport, the City, and others, in which he alleges a variety of disability related employment claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

The case was tried to a jury. The court granted the airport’s nonsuit motion on several claims; the jury found in favor of the airport on White’s remaining claims. The outcome was affirmed in the unpublished case of White v City of Los Angeles.

White’s primary contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial. He argues the evidence does not support either the jury’s verdict or the court’s nonsuit.

The court of appeal held that the “evidence – when properly viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment – does not support White’s assertion that the airport refused to consider any accommodation absent a showing of a “permanent restriction.” During the discussions with White about his request for an accommodation, the airport focused mainly on whether White had any limitations due to his disability and, if so, how working during the day rather than at night might impact those limitations. Given that White said he could perform his job without any accommodation and the City’s medical office cleared White to return to work without any restrictions, the airport’s request for some additional information regarding his request for accommodation was not unreasonable.”