A Honolulu Hertz Car Sales Department Location Manager is entitled to trial on his disability discrimination claim, according to a recent decision by United States District Judge Derrick Watson. The employee suffered from several medical conditions, including Chronic Ulcerative Proctitis, Ulcerative Colitis, Depression, Dysthymic Disorder and Adjustment Disorder.  He claimed that these conditions substantially limited multiple major life activities, including eating, sleeping, concentrating, walking, and taking care of himself.  He brought his dog to work without his mainland managers knowing for around a year.  When the company learned that he was bringing the dog to work, the employee was asked to provide information from his medical provider regarding the need to have the dog at work as a form of accommodation.  He failed to provide the information.

After engaging in pattern of disruptive behavior including altercations with other employees, plaintiff was terminated.  He challenged the termination and claimed that the employer failed to provide a requested accommodation to his disability.  In concluding that trial was proper on this claim, the court reasoned that a jury should decide factual questions like whether the employer actually had notice of his disability, and whether the employer's proffered reason for termination was pretextual for discrimination.  In concluding that trial was proper on the reasonable accommodation claim, the court concluded that a jury should decide factual questions like whether the employee requested to bring the dog to work as an accommodation and whether such a request was reasonable.  In so doing, the court emphasized that employers are obligated to follow up on an employee's failure to provide medical information supporting a reasonable accommodation request.  To avoid liability, an employer must show that "it did everything in its power to find a reasonable accommodation, but the informal interactive process broke down because the employee failed to engage in discussions in good faith."  Assaturian v. Hertz Corp.