Tag: disability

Posted on

Students File Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against UCLA

Reasonable accommodations required by ADA, Disability discrimination lawyers Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

In a significant development concerning accessible education, two students have filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against UCLA and the University of California Board of Regents. Jake Bertellotti, a third-year applied mathematics student, and Taylor Carty, a graduate public health student, are challenging what they allege to be UCLA’s failure to adequately support students with disabilities. This lawsuit highlights the dangers posed by insufficient emergency preparedness for disabled students, raising important questions about UCLA’s commitment to providing an inclusive and safe environment for all its students.

The lawsuit claims that UCLA has not sufficiently addressed the concerns of students with disabilities regarding emergency evacuation protocols, accessible housing, and academic facilities. The plaintiffs argue that this negligence violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and federal and state antidiscrimination and housing laws, placing students with disabilities at risk during emergencies.

One of the major concerns outlined in the lawsuit is UCLA’s inadequate emergency preparedness for students with disabilities. The plaintiffs allege that the university lacks proper evacuation plans, does not provide evacuation chairs in residential buildings, and has not properly trained staff on their use. Bertellotti’s situation became so critical that he left campus during the Los Angeles County fires in January, potentially jeopardizing his academic responsibilities due to fears of inadequate evacuation measures.

The lawsuit also points to issues regarding the accessibility of academic facilities, emphasizing the lack of accessible entrances and the obstacles that students face on pathways. Furthermore, there are significant gaps in transportation accessibility through BruinAccess, as students requiring specialized transit must reserve rides 24 hours in advance, a requirement the plaintiffs argue violates the ADA.

The plaintiffs are advocating for concrete changes at UCLA. They call for the hiring of an emergency planning expert focusing on the needs of people with disabilities and a thorough evaluation of the university’s compliance with ADA standards. They also emphasize the necessity for improved staffing at the Center for Accessible Education, better tracking of disability accommodations, and expanded transit options.

This case has implications beyond UCLA, challenging universities nationwide to acknowledge the importance of emergency preparedness and accessibility for all students. As UCLA prepares to host Paralympians during the 2028 Olympics, this lawsuit serves as a wake-up call for the institution. It represents an opportunity for UCLA to set a national standard by demonstrating a genuine commitment to disability rights rather than merely claiming it.

Currently, UCLA has a staff-to-student ratio of 1 to 1,281, which is significantly lower than the national average of 1 to 133, as highlighted in the complaint. The university’s response to this lawsuit will be crucial in ensuring that disabled students, faculty, and campus visitors receive the respect and support they deserve, urging UCLA to take a proactive role in fostering a truly inclusive educational environment.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) plays a vital role in guaranteeing equal access and opportunities for individuals with disabilities across public spaces, schools, and workplaces. When establishments neglect to address unsafe or non-compliant conditions, they not only jeopardize the well-being of people with disabilities but also undermine the principles of equity and inclusion. Raising these concerns with the responsible parties is an important first step. However, if your concerns are ignored or inadequately addressed, consulting an experienced ADA attorney becomes essential. These legal professionals can advocate for accountability and push for the necessary changes to uphold accessibility and justice for all. Contact us for a free consultation and take the first step toward justice. Together, we can hold negligent organizations accountable and advance the mission of true inclusivity.

Posted on

Jury Could Find Termination Substantially Motivated by Disability

Disability Discrimination Lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP have extensive knowledge in this area of law.

Although Employer Had Tentatively Placed Employee RIF List Before Becoming Aware of Her Disability, It Did Not Terminate Her Employment Until After It Was Aware Of Her Disability – A Reasonable Jury Could Find That Employee’s Ultimate Termination Was Substantially Motivated By Her Disability

Lin v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 88 Cal.App.5th 712 (2023)

Suchin I. Lin was employed by Kaiser as an IT Engineer. Lin became disabled as a result of a fall in the workplace which caused her to suffer an injury to her left shoulder. A doctor issued a work status report placing Lin on modified duty with restrictions requiring Lin to use a sling and to limit the use of her left arm. The doctor also indicated that surgery might be necessary. As part of a round of employee layoffs Kaiser planned, at least tentatively, to terminate Lin before Lin became disabled. Following her disability, Kaiser went forward with her layoff. Lin sued for disability discrimination. Kaiser filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was entitled to summary adjudication of Lin’s disability discrimination and retaliation claims because the decision-maker had made the decision to eliminate Lin’s position in a RIF before Lin sustained her disability. Lin opposed the motion arguing that, while her name was selected for the initial RIF list prior to her disability, this “proposed” list was “subject to further review,” as reflected in the list’s gradual reduction from 31 employees to the 17 who were ultimately laid off. She further argued that her ultimate termination was a result of the decision-maker’s reliance on her supervisor’s post-disability assessment of her, particularly a post-disability email to the decision-maker rating her performance much lower than that of her teammates. The trial court granted Kaiser’s motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed. The Court of Appeal held that Kaiser’s plan to terminate Lin before she became disabled, by itself, was (of course) not discrimination against Lin because of her disability. But Kaiser did not complete its layoff plans—or, a reasonable jury could find, make its final determination to terminate Lin—until after Lin had become disabled. The Court of Appeal found that there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Kaiser’s ultimate decision to terminate Lin was motivated, at least in substantial part, by concerns Kaiser had about Lin’s disability. The Court of Appeal found the following facts important in its decision:

  • Before Lin sustained her disability, neither her then-current supervisor nor any prior supervisor had given her a negative performance evaluation.
  • After Lin sustained her disability, her then-current supervisor began giving her negative feedback and a poor performance evaluation.
  • Lin’s then-current supervisor’s criticisms, in large part, revolved around his concerns about her “slow delivery” and her “pace of execution” – concerns that a jury could find stemmed directly from her disability.

Lin’s then-current supervisor agreed to Lin’s request for light-duty work as a form of accommodation for her disability (but he never actually provided her with light-duty work). His agreement to assign Lin lighter tasks supported a reasonable inference that he believed her disability prevented her from handling her usual workload.