Le

Le v. Blue Tax, Inc. CA2/8

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 1, 2016B259507California7,946 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

Background Because Le’s appeal arises in a pre-trial context, we state the facts as alleged in her operative pleading. We accept Le’s alleged facts as true solely for purposes of addressing her appeal. With this framework in mind, we turn to the facts. Le is Vietnamese, and has the physical condition “known as Strabismus.” Le’s complaint describes her condition as “a cosmetic disfigurement in which the two eyes do not line up in the same direction, and therefore do not look at the same object at the same time. The condition is more commonly known as ‘crossed eyes.’” In accord with the FEHA’s statutory definition of physical disability (see §§ 12926; 12955.3), Le alleges that her condition “impairs [her] life activities including seeing and working.”

1 Our references to Blue Tax include respondents David Urbas and Todd Lewis, both of whom are alleged in Le’s action to be managing agents of the business. We will refer to Urbas and Lewis individually only as needed for clarity. Le also sued David Guaracha, another alleged Blue Tax manager, but dismissed him from her action shortly after it was filed because, she says, he filed a bankruptcy case. Guaracha is not a party to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.