Salisbury

Salisbury v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Good Law
126 F. App'x 368
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 10, 2005No. 03-55764California466 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*369 MEMORANDUM *

Anna Salisbury appeals the district court’s award of summary judgment to Delta Air Lines on her claim under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Salisbury was a career flight attendant with Delta. Salisbury argues that Delta failed to reasonably accommodate her disability as required by California Government Code § 12940(m). However, her medical restrictions prevented her from performing the essential functions of a flight attendant position even with a reasonable accommodation. As a result, she was not a qualified individual for the flight attendant position. See Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank, 85 Cal.App.4th 245 , 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 55, 62-68 (2000). Delta was not obligated under FEHA to create a new, indefinite temporary assignment to accommodate Salisbury’s disability. See McCullah v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 82 Cal. App.4th 495, 98 Cal. Rptr.2d 208, 213 (Cal. Ct.App.2000). Delta was also not required to permit Salisbury to take repeated leaves of absence when she was capable of working at a different position. See Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 74 Cal.App.4th 215 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 487, 494…

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.