Adonican
Adonican v. County of Los Angeles
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Maria Adonican appeals the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the County of Los Angeles (“the County”), on her claims that the County violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“the ADA”) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Adonican alleges that the County failed to provide her with reasonable accommodations, failed to engage in *632 the interactive process, and retaliated against her.
Adonican’s 1994 and 1996 claims, which are discrete claims and not continuing violations, are time-barred under federal and state law. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(l), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12960; National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101,108-17 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 , 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002); and Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 798, 823-24 , 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 87 , 29 P.3d 175 (2001). As to her remaining claims, no genuine issue of fact remains, and Adonican has not demonstrated that the County failed to provide her with reasonable accommodations or that the interactive process was insufficient under the ADA or FEHA.
We have adopted the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting rules for retaliation claims under the ADA. See Brown v.…