GLOW
Glow v. Union Pacific Railroad
Opinion
Opinion
Karlton, J.
ORDER
Plaintiff is employed by defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company as a locomotive engineer. He has brought suit alleging that defendant, due to the condition of the equipment in some of defendant’s trains, violated the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 , the Locomotive Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20701 , and by virtue of those conditions and other conduct violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12900. Pending before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all causes of action. The court resolves the motion on the papers and after oral argument. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND AND FACTS
Plaintiff is a locomotive engineer employed by defendant, who operates as an interstate common carrier. In early 2007, plaintiff was on medical leave and, in June 2007, returned to work. At that time, he was cleared to work without any restrictions.
The next month, he sent to defendant’s General Superintendent a note written by Dr. Jerome Sehofferman on a prescription pad that stated, “Reasonable accommodation, Ergonomic locomotive operator chair, Head/neck rest/…