Rommel v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. CA2/4

Filed 12/5/14 Rommel v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

GLORIA ROMMEL, B253405

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC501764) v.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark V. Mooney, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Duchrow & Piano, David J. Duchrow and Jill A. Piano, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Los Angeles Unified School District Office of General Counsel, Charlie L. Hill, and Alexander Molina for Defendant and Respondent. _____________________________________

Gloria Rommel appeals from a judgment of dismissal after the court sustained the demurrer of respondent Los Angeles Unified School District without leave to amend. Appellant, a certificated school teacher, was allegedly terminated due to a computer error that showed she was absent without leave (AWOL) while on an approved leave of absence. We conclude that the one-year statute of limitations for filing a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) was equitably tolled while appellant attempted to have her employment status corrected. We also conclude appellant has stated valid claims for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, §12940 et seq., FEHA).1 The judgment (order of dismissal) is reversed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The factual summary is taken from the first amended complaint, the operative pleading. Appellant was a certificated employee, who became disabled during her employment with respondent. Respondent approved her leave of absence between June 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008. Appellant was notified her 2008 application for leave of absence was “incomplete.” The leave of absence was at some point approved. In May 2009, appellant received notices that “she was on an ‘unauthorized’ leave” and that she was AWOL. She was given 10 days to respond and was advised that her failure to do so ‘“may result in an action to process your separation from the District.’” She contacted the head secretary at the school to which she had been assigned. The secretary assured her the principal had not reported her absent, and her AWOL status was due to a computer error. Appellant then contacted James Brumitt, a specialist in the Certificated Placement and Assignments Unit, who directed her to submit applications for a leave of absence from July 2008 through July 2009, and from July 2009 through July 2010. Appellant complied.