Employment
LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL � FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2008 � PAGE 6
By Michele M. Goldsmith
and Brian J. Bergman
Over the last several years, California
employers have faced a barrage of
court opinions that have reinforced
that employers must be proactive in trying
to fi nd reasonable accommodations for an
employee who claims a disability. These
decisions have been set against the backdrop
of the California employer’s obligation to
not only provide a reasonable accommoda-
tion, but to comply with their separate and
distinct obligation under California Govern-
ment Code Section 12940(n) to engage in a
“timely, good faith interactive process” with
the employee to try and fi nd a reasonable
accommodation. The Legislature, and the
court decisions interpreting the applicable
statutes, have not established the manner in
which to engage in the interactive process,
but the process normally manifests itself as
meetings between an employee and various
members of the employer’s management
team to come up with a reasonable accommo-
dation that can allow the employee to retain
his or her employment within the company.
The California Court of Appeal’s recent
decision in Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus
Group, Inc., et al., 2008 DJDAR 14314, contin-
ues the trend of California courts requiring
employers to be exceptionally proactive in
fi nding ways to retain disabled employees,
and reminds employers to exhaust all possi-
ble avenues of potential accommodations. In
Neiman Marcus, Nadaf-Rahrov had worked as
a fi tter for Neiman Marcus since 1985. Start-
ing in 1997 and continuing through 2004,
she experienced recurring problems with
back and joint pain, carpal tunnel syndrome
and osteoarthritis. Nadaf-Rahrov’s treating
physician had informed Neiman Marcus
that her conditions required various accom-
modations, including time off work and a
shortened workweek, which Neiman Marcus
provided. It was not until November 2003 that
Nadaf-Rahrov requested an extended leave of
absence due to her variou