Bilhah Lopez worked for the City of Santa Ana beginning in 1998, initially part-time and later as a full-time public works dispatcher. In January 2021, Lopez notified the City she had COVID-19 and would be absent from work. She was hospitalized and provided disability certificates excusing her from work, with her leave extended through June 1, 2021.

On June 1, 2021, the City contacted Lopez requesting either an updated doctor’s note or her return to work, but she did not respond. On August 3, 2021, Lopez forwarded two work status forms to the City indicating she could return to work with specific accommodations, including no prolonged sitting or standing, and working in a low-stress environment with frequent breaks.

The City responded requesting clarification from Lopez’s doctor and sending her a supplemental medical questionnaire to complete. The City asked Lopez to return the completed questionnaire within 14 days. Despite this request and follow-up letters, Lopez never responded or returned the questionnaire.

After receiving no response, the City sent Lopez a final letter stating that her extensive absence without approved leave was deemed a resignation, and she was separated from her position effective October 22, 2021.

Lopez filed suit in September 2022, alleging six causes of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to accommodate disability, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) age discrimination, (5) failure to prevent discrimination, and (6) retaliation.

The City filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted, entering judgment in favor of the City in August 2024. The trial court found the City had met its initial burden of showing the adverse employment action was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors – specifically, that Lopez had abandoned her employment. The court found Lopez failed to raise a triable issue of material fact showing her termination resulted from discrimination or pretext.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment in its entirety in the unpublished case of Lopez v. City of Santa Ana -G064787 (February 2026).

The appellate court concluded the City met its initial burden by presenting evidence that Lopez was terminated because she abandoned her job. Lopez failed to respond to any subsequent communications, including requests for a completed medical questionnaire. The court rejected each of Lopez’s arguments for pretext.

Lopez argued the City’s risk management department already had her work status forms, but the court found she provided no evidence her doctor or workers’ compensation attorney actually sent those documents to the City when issued.

The court was not persuaded that the City’s decision to contact Lopez directly, rather than through her workers’ compensation attorney, supported an inference of pretext, citing California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11069, subdivision (d)(4), which provides that direct communications are preferred but not required.

The court held the interactive process and failure to accommodate claims failed because the evidence showed Lopez was responsible for the breakdown in the interactive process, citing Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54. After receiving Lopez’s work status forms, the City promptly sent a questionnaire requesting additional information from her doctor. Lopez failed to respond to the questionnaire or follow-up communications, and the court found no triable issue existed as to whether the City failed to act in good faith.

The appellate court affirmed the judgment in its entirety, with the City to recover its costs on appeal. The City’s request for sanctions was denied, citing Cowan v. Krayzman (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 907, 919, which holds that sanctions cannot be sought in the respondent’s brief.