During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Disability Discrimination

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

This decision reverses a summary judgment for defendant on plaintiffs Americans with Disabilities Act claim.  The summary judgment was granted on the ground that the defendant had fewer than 15 employees, the minimum threshold for application of the ADA.  However, the decision holds that there was a triable issue of fact whether the defendant, a Nevada law limited partnership, was… Read More

Under 28 USC 1367(c)(4), the district court may decline jurisdiction of state law claims  if in extraordinary circumstances there are compelling circumstances for declining jurisdiction.  This decision affirms the district court's ruling that there were extraordinary circumstances in this ADA, physical barriers case, because California's Legislature had amended Civ. Code 52(a) and 55.56 to discourage repeat litigation by a small… Read More

This decision affirms a summary judgment for the employer in a FEHA disability discrimination case.  The employer met its McDonnell Douglas burden of proving a nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the plaintiff; namely, her chronic absenteeism and failure to document dispensing of prescription medicine properly.  Plaintiff didn't produce any evidence showing the employer's reason was pretextual.  Though the employer had misclassified… Read More

This decision reverses a summary judgment in a disability discrimination case under FEHA.  Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case that he could perform the essential duties of a job with or without accommodation and that he was treated differently from other employees because of his disability. Defendant's showing of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiff's discharge… Read More

To establish a claim under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show: (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was denied a reasonable accommodation that he needs in order to enjoy meaningful access to the benefits of public services; and (3) the program providing the benefit receives federal financial assistance.  In addition, the plaintiff… Read More

Under the Department of Justice's Accessible Stadium's guidance document section 4.33.3, a stadium must all spectators in wheelchairs to see (a) between the heads and over the shoulders of standing spectators in the row immediately in front of the wheelchair spectators, and (b) over the heads of standing spectators in the second row from the wheelchair spectators.  The district court… Read More

Plaintiff, who suffers from PTSD, has a dog to help her cope.  She could not afford to pay for formal training and certification of the dog as a service animal.  She trained the dog herself.  This decision holds that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require that service animals meet certification standards before their disabled owners are entitled to… Read More

Brown, a teacher, complained that the electro-magnetic waves emanating from the new wi-fi system installed in her school caused her chronic pain, headaches, nausea, itching, burning sensations on her skin, ear issues, shortness of breath, inflammation, heart palpitations, respiratory complications, foggy headedness, and fatigue.  She reported her symptoms to the school, which initially gave her the option of having it… Read More

Whitaker adequately alleged standing to bring a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act by alleging that the counters in Tesla's showrooms were inaccessible to him (as a wheelchair-bound person) and deterred him from returning to Tesla's showrooms.  However, Whitaker's complaint was properly dismissed for failure to meet Iqbal/Twombly pleading standards as it mostly repeated the statutory elements of an… Read More

1 2 3