Poll v. Hewlett-Packard Co. CA2/6

Filed 12/17/15 Poll v. Hewlett-Packard Co. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

LEON POLL, 2d Civil No. B258873 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2013- Plaintiff and Appellant, 00437629-CU-WT-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant Leon Poll challenges the trial court's grant of summary judgment to his former employer, respondent Hewlett-Packard Company (HP). He claims that during the final three days of his employment HP failed to accommodate his temporary disability and failed to engage in the interactive process. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Poll was employed by HP as a Cognos Senior Software Engineer. He worked entirely for one HP client, Amgen, out of its offices. His position was a "desk job" that consisted solely of sitting in front of a computer, writing emails, and occasionally answering the phone. It did not involve any manual labor. HP decided to terminate Poll. During his last week at work, he emailed his supervisor, Linda Belzer, stating that he was "experiencing . . . severe pain in the right side of [his] upper body." He attached a doctor's note stating that he was "temporarily

totally disabled" unless his duty was modified so that he "[took] a break every 30 minutes to stretch" and refrained from "lifting in excess of 15 pounds" and "repetitive or forceful grasping, gripping, torquing, pulling and/or pushing with [his] right hand." Belzer responded, "Based on your attached Doctor's note, we can meet your doctor's recommendations for modified duty for the remainder of the week, effective immediately." Belzer had never visited Poll's job site. She did not follow up to ensure that his disability was being accommodated. Poll sued HP, claiming that during his final week it failed to accommodate his disability and failed to engage in the interactive process.1 (Gov. Code, § 12940, subds. (m), (n).) The trial court granted HP summary judgment on both causes of action, finding that Poll "was accommodated during the brief period between his delivery of the doctor's note . . . and his termination three days later." The trial court agreed with HP that he was not entitled to punitive damages because "Belzer was not a managing agent" and "neither [she] nor any managing agent engaged in fraud, oppression, or malice." DISCUSSION Poll contends that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to HP because he presented evidence showing that his disability was not accommodated. He also contends that the trial court erred by dismissing his demand for punitive damages because Belzer was a managing agent who engaged in oppression, fraud, or malice. We review a trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. (William Jefferson & Co., Inc. v. Assessment Appeals Board (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1, 9.) The parties agree on the essential facts. They disagree whether, once Belzer told Poll that his disability would be accommodated, HP was required to do anything further to ensure that it was. Poll contends that HP "could not simply assume that [his] request was accommodated without any further action on its part" because it