CourtCases2010

But even if that is the case there is no evidence

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: al can burden or take away rights or privileges enjoyed by the non-handicapped persons is an important question of first impression"). Finally, whether a particular accommodation is reasonable often "turns on the facts of the case." Criado, 145 F.3d at 443. This is certainly not a case in which the facts clearly demonstrate an undue burden, thereby making summary judgment appropriate. Given the lack of evidence offered by the County and the relatively unburdensome nature of the requested accommodation, we find that McAlindin raised a triable issue of fact. We thus reject the County's argument that we should affirm on this ground. n10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n10 We also reject the County's contention that the EEOC commentary, 29 C.F.R. § 1630 (App.), precludes transferring McAlindin. Even if the County's erroneous construction of this commentary were correct, it would not control because it would conflict with the clear language of the statute, which permits job transfers. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**28] II. RETALIATION. In order to establish a prima facie case on his FEHA retaliation claim, McAlindin must demonstrate that (1) "he engaged in a protected activity," (2) "his employer subjected him to adverse employment action," and (3) "there is a causal link between the protected activity and the employer's action." Strother v. Southern Cal. Permanente Med. Group, 79 F.3d 859, 868 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Flait v. N. American Watch Corp., 3 Cal. App. 4th 467, 476 (Ct. App. 1992)). Next, the County is obligated to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See id. McAlindin then must respond with "specific, substantial evidence of pretext." Bradley, 104 F.3d 267 at 270 (internal quotation marks omitted). 205 We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on the retaliation claim because McAlindin failed to establish a prima facie case. The allegedly retaliator...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online