Moss
Moss v. City and County of San Francisco
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CECIL H. MOSS, Case No. 3:22-cv-01252-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION 9 v. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN Re: Dkt. No. 49
FRANCISCO,
11 Defendant.
12 13 Plaintiff Cecil Moss, Jr. alleges the City and County of San Francisco (the “City”)1 14 violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and four additional causes 15 of action stemming from disability discrimination. The City moves for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 16 No. 49.)2 For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the 17 City’s motion. Moss has established genuine issues of material fact as to whether the City 18 reasonably accommodated him and whether the City is responsible for the breakdown of the 19 interactive process. 20 // 21
22 1 Moss also names the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (“SFMTA”) as a Defendant. The Court take’s judicial notice of the City’s Charter §§ 1.101, 8A.101, (Dkt. Nos. 51- 23 1;…