Loy v. Automobile Club of Southern Cal.
Filed 6/30/06 Loy v. Automobile Club of Southern Cal. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| EUGENE LOY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. | G035980 (Super. Ct. No. 04CC08784) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John M. Watson, Judge. Affirmed.
Spray Gould & Bowers, Stan A. Grombchevsky and J. Matthew Saunders for Plaintiff and Appellant.
John K. Beckley and Derek B. Lipscombe for Defendant and Respondent.
* * *
Plaintiff Eugene Loy challenges the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant Automobile Club of Southern California (Auto Club). Loy contends he demonstrated triable issues of fact on whether Auto Club discriminated against him in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12900 et seq.,[1] because of his mental disability which prevented him from working for his previous supervisor, and whether Auto Club made reasonable accommodations for his disability and engaged in the interactive process required under FEHA.
We conclude the trial court properly granted summary judgment because (1) Loy failed to present evidence that Auto Club's reason for terminating him was pretextual, and (2) in light of the brief time Loy was a qualified individual under FEHA, approximately two weeks, Auto Club's decision to place Loy on leave was reasonable as a matter of law.
I
Factual and Procedural Background
Loy began working for Auto Club as a gardener in 1983 and worked in the purchasing department from 1985 through March 2004. In late 2003, Loy began to feel harassed and intimidated by his manager, Jim Jones. Although Loy had previously received favorable performance evaluations, promotions, and salary increases, Jones began to reprimand Loy in late 2003 for failing to keep complete and accurate time cards. After a series of informal warnings, Jones issued Loy a â€
