Background
Dylan Knight worked as a Project Team Leader for Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI), managing HVAC projects across the Bay Area. After medical leaves for depression and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), Knight sought to return in early 2019 with restrictions: unavailable for about two to three hours on Monday mornings for treatment and unable to drive for 48 hours afterward. Knight testified the doctors' letters overstated his actual time restriction, and he worked remotely 75 to 80 percent of the time with flexibility to schedule site visits. JCI's human resources staff nevertheless insisted that driving to job sites was an essential function and that the job could not be done part-time. When Knight urged HR to consult team members Wojdon and Juri about workable accommodations, JCI stopped communicating after May 2019 and sent only a January 2020 letter requesting return-to-work paperwork. Knight resigned in January 2020, saying he felt abandoned and could not safely return.
Knight sued in August 2019 under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and later constructive discharge. In May 2021 the trial court granted summary adjudication on eight causes of action, including disability discrimination and constructive discharge, leaving only the accommodation and interactive-process claims for trial. The jury found for Knight on both, awarding over $1 million in economic damages, nearly $2 million in noneconomic damages, and over $3 million in punitive damages. The trial court granted JCI's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial as to punitive damages but otherwise denied them. JCI appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and that post-resignation damages are unavailable as a matter of law.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed under the substantial evidence standard. A reasonable jury could find that driving itself was not an essential function of the Project Team Leader role, given Knight's remote work, scheduling flexibility, carpooling, rideshare use, and testimony that others handled urgent site issues, and that his brief weekly time restriction could be covered by other qualified employees. Substantial evidence also showed JCI obstructed the interactive process by refusing to engage directly with Knight about his limitations after he tried to clarify his restrictions, and that JCI's belated request for return-to-work paperwork nearly eight months later was not a good-faith attempt to re-engage. The court rejected JCI's argument that Knight was at fault for not correcting the doctors' letters, noting JCI's own witnesses knew the second letter was not very specific and did not align with Knight's e-mails, yet no one sought clarification.
On damages, the court extended Cloud v. Casey and McCoy to FEHA failure-to-accommodate and failure-to-engage claims, holding that post-resignation economic damages are available even where the employee voluntarily resigned and was not constructively discharged, because Civil Code section 3333 allows all detriment proximately caused by the violation and the FEHA aims to make the victim whole. Under the substantial-factor test, substantial evidence supported the economic award, including $840,000 in future lost earnings—about eight years at Knight's $107,000 salary—given his age, JCI's longevity, and his strong performance record. The court also affirmed the noneconomic damages award, finding evidence that JCI's conduct exacerbated Knight's preexisting depression and nothing suggesting the jury acted from passion or prejudice. The judgment and the order denying JCI's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial on economic and noneconomic damages and the two causes of action were affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- An employer's failure to engage directly with an employee about potential accommodations, instead relying on medical paperwork and then ceasing communication for months, can obstruct the FEHA interactive process.
- Post-resignation economic damages are recoverable for FEHA failure-to-accommodate and failure-to-engage claims even without constructive discharge if the violation was a substantial factor in the lost wages.
- Driving may not be an essential job function where the employee worked remotely most of the time and schedule adjustments or alternative transportation could accommodate medical restrictions.
- Emotional distress damages may rest on evidence that the employer's conduct exacerbated a preexisting mental health condition; appellate courts defer to the jury's amount unless it shocks the conscience.
Why It Matters
This decision extends Cloud and McCoy to FEHA accommodation and interactive-process claims, confirming that Civil Code section 3333's proximate-cause measure allows post-resignation economic damages. It also reinforces that employers cannot hide behind medical forms while refusing to communicate directly with employees, and that essential functions are judged by actual practice rather than job descriptions.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket