CourtCases2010

CourtCases2010

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: itten rebuttal was not a request for a reasonable accommodation, the Department's duty to engage in the "interactive process" was triggered when it discovered that she was in the hospital. This court is unpersuaded by this argument because Zihala never contacted the Department to explain the nature of 191 her alleged disability so that the Department could determine what specific accommodations would have been necessary for her to return to work. Instead of providing such information, Zihala took the position in her written rebuttal to the predisciplinary hearing that she was able to perform her job. She also submitted a letter from her doctor indicating that she could return to work. This letter gave no indication that she needed any special accommodation for her mental condition. Because Zihala was the only person that could ensure that the Department was aware of her limitations, she was responsible for the breakdown in the interactive process. See Beck, 75 F.3d at 1136 (indicating that, when missing information is such that it could only have been [*25] provided by one of the parties, the party who failed to provide such information may be responsible for the breakdown). In summary, we find that there is insufficient evidence to enable a reasonable jury to conclude that the Department breached its duty to reasonably accommodate Zihala. The undisputed evidence reveals that Zihala neither requested a reasonable accommodation nor disclosed information concerning her alleged disability that would give the Department reason to believe that an accommodation was necessary. Indeed, Zihala has consistently taken the position that she could perform her job with the Department. Zihala even fails to describe in her brief any reasonable accommodations for her alleged mental illness. Accordingly, we conclude that summary judgment is appropriate on Zihala's reasonable accommodation claim. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. It is so ordered. Wayne R. Andersen United States Distric...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online