Milan

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1030 OPINION In this case an employee at a municipal water treatment plant was injured on the job. When she was recovering from her injury, she was notified she had been terminated because the city did not believe she could perform the essential functions of her job. She then brought an action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code 1 *Page 1031 section 12940 et seq., in which she alleged the city had failed to attempt to accommodate her disability and that she was capable of performing the essential functions of her job. The trial court agreed with the employee, but found reinstatement was not appropriate because it would require that the city discharge another employee. The trial court awarded the employee backpay and emotional distress damages. However, the court declined to award the employee any compensation for future lost wages or so-called "front pay." On appeal the city argues that because, following notice to her that it believed she could not perform her job, the employee never expressly requested…