Price v. City of Sacramento CA3

Filed 3/21/22 Price v. City of Sacramento CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

ELLEN PRICE,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C088482

v. (Super. Ct. No. 34-2016- 00199508-CUWT-GDS) CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

Defendant and Respondent.

Ellen Price, an employee of the City of Sacramento (City), retired after being on a medical leave of absence for six months. She sued the City for disability discrimination, claiming the City did not provide reasonable accommodation, but a jury found in favor of the City. On appeal, Price contends the evidence does not support the jury’s verdict. We conclude Price’s contention is without merit and will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Price worked as a dispatcher for the City from 1994 to 2014. Sometime before early 2014, she injured her right ankle. She continued to work until the pain in her ankle increased. It was painful as she was required to use a foot pedal as part of her job. By

1

early 2014, the pain also interfered with walking and driving. Price requested to work part-time because of the pain, and the request was granted. However, she never actually started working part-time. As the pain continued to increase, Price underwent surgery in June 2014. In connection with the surgery and recovery, Price requested and was granted a medical leave of absence from June 11, 2014 to July 2, 2014. The letter approving her medical leave of absence notified Price that, if her leave exceeded six months, her position would be filled and she would be put on a reinstatement list. Over the next several months, Price could not return to work and requested three additional medical leaves of absence, which were approved, until September 29, 2014. The letters granting the leaves of absence again noted that, if her leave extended to six months, her position would be filled and she would be put on a reinstatement list. Price requested a fifth leave of absence because she scheduled ankle replacement surgery for October 2014. She asked to be on medical leave of absence through the end of January 2015. However, the City approved her leave of absence only through December 10, 2014, six months after she first went on leave. Price contacted the City, and Captain Michael McCarthy told her he was working on obtaining an exemption to the policy so that Price could be on leave beyond December 10, 2014. Ultimately, however, he was unable to obtain an exemption to the six-month policy for Price. In mid-November 2014, Price spoke to Captain McCarthy. Price told Captain McCarthy she could not be without her medical benefits and that she would have to retire (she was 50 years old) to retain them. He told her he thought that sounded like her best option. Captain McCarthy and other City employees did not tell Price about COBRA, through which she could retain medical benefits after she separated from service. They also did not discuss with Price what accommodations could be made that would allow Price to return to work before December 11, 2014, or what it would mean for her to be put on the reinstatement list.