Rivas v. Pacific Laundry Services CA2/8

Filed 9/29/21 Rivas v. Pacific Laundry Services CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

ROSA RIVAS, B303090

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC686085) v.

PACIFIC LAUNDRY SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michelle Williams Court, Judge. Affirmed.

Rastegar Law Group, Farzad Rastegar, Thomas S. Campbell and Rose Sorial for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Bare Law and Robert Bare for Defendant and Respondent.

**********

After being terminated from her job, plaintiff and appellant Rosa Rivas filed this action against her former employer, defendant and respondent Pacific Laundry Services, LLC for disability discrimination and related claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). At a bench trial in 2019, judgment was entered in favor of defendant from which plaintiff now appeals. We find substantial evidence supports the judgment and therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this action in December 2017 stating six causes of action, including five FEHA claims for disability discrimination, failure to prevent and correct discrimination, failure to make reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in good faith interactive process, and retaliation, and a claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Testimony from the May 2019 bench trial established the following material facts. 1. Plaintiff’s Testimony Plaintiff began working for defendant in August 2015. She worked different positions, folding towels, sheets and other linen taken in for cleaning from various business, like hotels and restaurants. She usually worked folding towels. Plaintiff was repeatedly told her productivity was low. Plaintiff admitted she could not work as quickly as her coworkers or meet the production goals set by defendant. She preferred working with the towels but was not able to use some of the folding techniques her coworkers showed her because of the pain in her hands. She preferred to use just her fingertips and could not grab the towels as she was shown.