Madrigal
Madrigal v. Performance Food Group, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
I. BACKGROUND
1 Mr. Madrigal began working for PTL in December 2016 as a Class A Driver. Dkt. No. 1- 2 1 ¶¶ 3, 6. In February 2020, Mr. Madrigal began experiencing “respiratory symptoms” and was 3 diagnosed with pneumonia. Id. ¶ 7. He asserts that his pneumonia affects his ability to breathe. 4 Id. As a result of his pneumonia, Mr. Madrigal’s physician placed him on medical leave. Id. ¶ 8. 5 Mr. Madrigal provided doctor’s notes to PTL. Id. Sometime thereafter, Mr. Madrigal’s doctor 6 extended his leave to September 2020 based on his pneumonia and his “high risk” status in light of 7 the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Id. ¶ 9. 8 On August 25, 2020, PTL asked Mr. Madrigal to provide “updated paperwork” from his 9 doctor concerning his condition. Id. ¶ 10. On September 2, 2020, Mr. Madrigal provided PTL 10 with “completed paperwork” from his doctor stating that he could return to work with a 11 “reasonable accommodation of minimizing contact with people.” Id. ¶ 11. 12 The parties met on September 8, 2020 to discuss Mr. Madrigal’s requested 13 accommodation. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. Mr. Madrigal proposed a transition from his driver’s position to a 14 position in PTL’s warehouse to…