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 hire a neutral expert to examine whether the wi-fi could be causing those symptoms, but then reneged and said it would rely on the prior work of the company that had installed the wi-fi and said it was perfectly safe.  This decision holds that the trial court correctly sustained the school’s demurrer to all but the claim that the school had not given Brown a reasonable accommodation for her alleged disability–by reneging on the offer of an independent expert study.  Brown had not alleged retaliation since she didn’t claim that the school treated her worse for having claimed she was disabled, nor did Brown allege facts showing any intent to discriminate against the disabled.  The school had engaged in an interactive process with Brown, resulting in the offer of an independent expert.  The school just had not followed through when Brown selected that option.  A concurrence bewails the use of experts to pump up a case like this which appears on its face to be unlikely of success.