On July 23, 2007, plaintiff Jacques Vo, 68, a car salesman with a vision impairment disability, was terminated from Valley Dodge Inc. on the basis of a Documentation of Medical Impairment from Kaiser. Prior to his termination in 2001, Vo’s vision deteriorated to 20/200 and he lost his driver’s license. At that time, Valley Dodge accommodated his disability by having a porter bring the vehicles from the parking lot for test drives. In August 2006, Vo contracted an eye infection, which required a medical leave of absence, and his health care provider at Kaiser provided a DMI. In June 2007, Vo’s vision had returned to his pre-medical leave status and he attempted to return to work by providing a return to work note, which released him to return to work on June 29, 2007. However, Vo claimed that he was told that there was no work for him. In July 2007, Vo again attempted to get his job back even though Kaiser suggested that he attempt to get his state disability extended since he had no job. As a result, Kaiser executed another DMI on July 23, 2007, identical to the August 2006 note that placed Vo on medical leave. Vo claimed that he did not use this DMI because he learned that state disability lasted only one year, but Kaiser had already provided the note to Valley Dodge. As a result, Valley Dodge terminated Vo on July 23, 2007, on the basis of the Kaiser DMI. On July 30, 2007, Vo met with the office manager and asked her to assist him in getting his job back. She suggested that if Vo brought another note in, maybe they would change their minds. Vo again brought a release from his physician for him to go back to work dated Aug. 9, 2007, but he was again told that there was no job for him. Valley Dodge subsequently provided him with a letter on Aug. 27, 2007, stating that he was not allowed to return to work because “his vision condition at time of return did not meet the criteria for reinstatement” and that “there were no equivalent positions available.” However, Vo claimed that between July 2007 and May 2008, Valley Dodge still hired 21 new car salespersons. Vo sued Valley Dodge for disability discrimination. Valley Dodge moved to compel arbitration, and the motion was granted. During arbitration, Vo claimed that Valley Dodge discriminated against him because of his disability. He also claimed that Valley Dodge failed to engage in the interactive process, failed to reasonably accommodate his disability, failed to rehire him because he was disabled, and failed to prevent disability discrimination. Defense counsel contended that Vo was totally disabled and unable to work with or without an accommodation. Counsel also contended that Valley Dodge was not required to keep his job open for him, nor was it required to rehire him after his termination., Vo alleged that he was not able to find employment despite searching for work daily. He claimed that as a result, he became severely depressed and contemplated suicide. Defense counsel contended that Vo had pre-existing depression because of his vision impairment and that his termination only caused a slight increase in depression for three months. However, Vo denied any pre-existing depression.