> >
| Case Name | Butler v. Direct TV | |
|---|---|---|
| Date | 10/08/2008 | |
| Note | [Unpublished] DIRECTV was not required to provide Butler with a part-time position, and Butler could not work full-time. As a result, a reasonable accommodation was not available and DIRECTV cannot be held liable for failing to engage in an interactive process. | |
| Citation | B201173 | |
| WCC Citation | WCC 34342008 CA |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO ROBERT BUTLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DIRECT TV, Defendant and Respondent. Appellant Robert Butler (Butler) sued respondent DIRECTV, Inc. (DIRECTV) for disability discrimination. On June 14, 2005, Butler informed Veazie that his doctor was going to release him to work part-time. DIRECTV was not required to provide Butler with a part-time position, and Butler could not work full-time. After Butler spoke to Veazie, Veazie asked Rodriguez if Butler could be accommodated.
Download full case here.
Download full case here.
