Castro-Ramirez

—Plaintiff Luis Castro-Ramirez sued his former employer, Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (DHE), alleging causes of action for disability discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA or the Act) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), as well as wrongful termination in violation of public policy. (He alleged other claims not pursued on appeal.) Plaintiff’s son requires daily dialysis, and, according to the evidence, plaintiff must be the one to administer the dialysis. For several years, plaintiff’s supervisors scheduled him so that he could be home at night for his son’s dialysis. That schedule changed when a new supervisor took over and ultimately terminated plaintiff for refusing to work a shift that did not permit him to be home in time for his son’s dialysis. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s motion to tax costs.

We reverse the judgment and the order denying the motion to tax costs. Plaintiff has demonstrated triable issues of material fact on his causes of *1032 action for associational disability discrimination, failure to prevent…

Dissenting.—Respectfully, I dissent.

The majority in the original published opinion in this appeal, filed April 4, 2016, held that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.; FEHA) creates a duty according to the plain language of the act to provide reasonable accommodations to an applicant or employee who is associated with a disabled person. The present majority opinion has retreated from that holding. My colleagues state they do not decide whether *1052 FEHA establishes a separate duty to reasonably accommodate employees who associate with a disabled person. (Maj. opn. ante, at p. 1038.) The majority neither acknowledges its prior holding nor explains the retreat from it. The majority does, however, “find accommodation relevant as to plaintiff’s discrimination cause of action.” (Maj. opn. ante, at p. 1038.) And, while repeating that it does not decide the point, the majority observes that Government Code section 12940, subdivision (m) 1 —making it unlawful to fail to reasonably accommodate the known physical disability of an applicant or employee—“may reasonably be interpreted to require accommodation based on the employee’s association with a…

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The Complaint Plaintiff alleged that, when DHE hired him to work as a truck driver in 2010, he told DHE he had a disabled son who required dialysis on a daily basis and he (plaintiff) was responsible for administering the dialysis. He requested work schedule accommodations that his supervisor initially granted, permitting him to attend to his son in the evening. In 2013, a new supervisor changed his work schedule. Plaintiff complained to the new supervisor about the change in schedule. On April 23, 2013, the supervisor gave plaintiff the 12:00 p.m. shift. Plaintiff objected and explained that the shift would not allow him to be home early enough in the evening to tend to his disabled son. The supervisor spoke to a manager and then terminated plaintiff’s employment. The supervisor told plaintiff he “had quit by choosing not to take the assigned shift.” Plaintiff’s complaint alleged a cause of action for associational disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, claiming defendant “was substantially motivated, in

2 part, to terminate Plaintiff because of his association with his disabled family members . . . .” Plaintiff also alleged DHE’s conduct was in…