No. 23-7320

Darrin Espinosa v. Contra Costa County, California

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-04-26
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: ada americans-with-disabilities-act disability-rights employment-discrimination essential-functions job-performance reasonable-accommodation termination termination-of-employment workers-compensation
Key Terms:
Environmental AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity Immigration
Latest Conference: 2024-05-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does a disabled person have the right to perform a job even though he does not need accommodations to perform all essential functions of the job?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. DOES A DISABLED PERSON HAVE THE RIGHT TO PERFORM A JOB EVEN THOUGH HE DOES NOT NEED ACCOMOCATIONS TO PERFORM ALL ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB? . 2. IS TERMINATION AND WITHDRAWAL OF A CONDITIONAL/OFFER OF WORK APPROPRIATE WHEN: a. AWORKER’S COMPENSATION PHYSICIAN HAS NOTED LIMITATIONS THAT ARE PERMANENT AND STATIONARY, YET DO NOT IMPACT THE PERSON'S ABILITY TO PERFORM THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB IN QUESTION. (THE PHYSICIAN RELEASE DID NOT STATE THAT MR. ESPINOSA COULDN'T CLIMB A LADDER). b. MR. ESPINOSA WAS ABLE TO PERFORM ALL ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS OF BUILDING INPSECTOR FOR 2 YEARS SUBSEQUENT. c. APANEL OF PEOPLE WHO PERFORM THE JOB IN QUESTION, ALONG WITH THE INDIVIDUAL’S IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR, QUESTIONED THE INDIVIDUAL AND REVIEWED A TWO-YEAR RECORD OF SATISFACTORY WORK PERFORMANCE AND THUSLY DETERMINED THAT HE WAS QUALIFIED AND ABLE TO PERFORM ALL ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB WITHOUT ACCOMODATION. d. DESPITE A TWO-YEAR RECORD OF SAFELY CLIMBING LADDERS WHILE PERFORMING THE INDIVIDUAL WAS NEVER PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PERFORM A FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY EXAMINATION. e. TERMINATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL WAS BASED ON A PHYSICIAN’S REPORT WHO INTERPRETED A THIRD-PARTY SELF-REPORT QUESTIONNAIRE AND NEVER SAW OR SPOKE WITH THE PERSON IN QUESTION. 3. IS IT THE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE’S RESPONSIBILITY TO TRACK THE : NUMBER OF HOURS WORKEDBY THE EMPLOYEE IN A TEMPORARY POSITION? 4. IS IT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EMPLOYER TO TRACK THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED IN A TEMPORARY POSITION? 5. IS EXCEEDING THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED FOR A TEMPORARY POSITION CAUSE FOR TERMINATION? 5 6. IS EXCEEDING THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED FOR A TEMPORARY POSITION CAUSE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF A CONDITIONAL OFFER OF WORK? ; 7. DID EMPLOYER FAIL TO FOLLOW PROTOCOL FOR TEMPORARY POSITIONS, AND DID LIABILITY CONCERNS CAUSE THE COUNTY TO USE THIS ERROR AS A MEANS TO TERMINATE? (DISCRIMINATORY INTENT). . ©

Docket Entries

2024-08-19
Rehearing DENIED.
2024-07-25
DISTRIBUTED.
2024-06-26
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2024-06-03
Petition DENIED.
2024-05-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2024.
2024-04-29
Waiver of right of respondent Contra Costal County, California to respond filed.
2023-12-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 28, 2024)

Attorneys

Contra Costal County, California
Sean M. RodriquezCounty of Contra Costa, Respondent
Sean M. RodriquezCounty of Contra Costa, Respondent
Darrin Espinosa
Darrin Espinosa — Petitioner
Darrin Espinosa — Petitioner