"Beginning in 2010, and as a result of a serious medical
condition, Hoa took a number of extended medical leaves from
work. In early 2013, Hoa believed, and her doctor reported, she
was able to return to work with workplace accommodations.
When Hoa reported for work, however, the County did not allow
her to work. Instead, under Rule 9.07B, the County required Hoa
to submit to a medical reevaluation, which she did in May 2013. . . .
A County clinical psychologist with Occupational Health
Programs conducted the medical reevaluation. The psychologist
determined Hoa suffered from a “chronic and persistent
psychological condition” that had “caused her to miss an
extraordinary amount of time from work over the past several
years.” The psychologist also reported that, when at work and
“despite numerous accommodations that the department has
made (such as assigning [Hoa] only a small fraction of the
caseload that other co-workers carry), [Hoa’s] performance has been unsatisfactory and punctuated by complaints from
participants.” As a result of the May 2013 medical reevaluation,
Occupational Health Programs determined “Hoa’s psychological
condition impairs her ability to think clearly or carry-through
with an activity. From a practical standpoint, she is unable to
effectively interact with others or in situations that require her to
perform even the most rudimentary tasks. Due to the severity of
her illness, Ms. Hoa is unable to perform any of the essential job
duties of her current, or any other, position presently and in the
foreseeable future.”"
Thus began a series of hearings, motions and litigation that progressed for another six years, ending only today, when the Court of Appeal reverses the decision below and holds Ms. Hoa not entitled to any relief.
The public sector is often quite different than the private sector.
