In February 2010, plaintiff Joseph Snead, 62, a night custodian at Liberty Elementary School, in Ontario, attempted to return to work after being off of work due to an injury. Snead was previously injured on the job when he was instructed to move furniture in the absence of his coworker custodians in January 2010. During the move, a wheel fell off the dolly that Snead was using, causing the bookshelf to fall. Snead instinctively caught the falling shelf and injured his lower spine, requiring medical treatment and several weeks off of work. When Snead attempted to return to work in February 2010, he brought a doctor’s note with permanent work restrictions for his back condition. The note stated that Snead could no longer use ladders as part of his job, as the climbing and twisting motion would aggravate his injury. Snead claimed that when he presented this doctor’s note to the school district, he was ordered home until further notice. A few days later, representatives from the school district’s Human Resources Department told Snead that they could not accommodate his work restrictions, but that they would set up an “interactive process meeting” in order to meet the district’s affirmative duty to engage in a good faith interactive process to determine if an accommodation could be made. Roughly three weeks later, Snead attended the interactive process meeting to discuss his restrictions and possible accommodations. However, he claimed the district used an inaccurate job description document, refused his accommodation suggestions, and claimed his requests would pose an undue hardship on the district. Snead was subsequently sent a letter, which discharged him from his position, stating he could reapply if and when his medical restriction changed. Snead sued the Chino Valley Unified School District for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in a good faith interactive process. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that ladder climbing was only a minor job duty for Snead and that the school district never actually investigated the cost or difficulty of any possible accommodation. Snead claimed that at the meeting, the school district relied on a document called the “Essential Functions Job Analysis” (EFJA) for the position of “Custodian I” – his official job title with the Chino Valley Unified School District. Snead claimed that the EFJA document was inaccurate because it listed any and all possible job duties that a Custodian I might preform, and did not take into account any differences between custodians who work the night shift versus the day shift or any differences between custodians who work at different job sites, like a high school versus an elementary school, where he worked. He also claimed that the EFJA document did not specify which job duties, if any, would require a ladder and that it only stated that ladder use (in general) would be “occasional to frequent.” In addition, Snead claimed that the EFJA document was created four years earlier by the same company that the district was using to “facilitate” the meeting as a “neutral” third party. Snead alleged that neither he nor any of the other custodians he worked with had ever been consulted about the creation of the EFJA, nor had he ever even seen the EFJA prior to his meeting with the district. He contended that as a result, the district told him at the meeting that, as a Custodian I, he was “expected” to use ladders on a daily basis for a laundry list of (mostly hypothetical) duties, which included hanging decorations and setting up for special events, climbing up on the roof to retrieve balls, repairing broken ceiling tiles, high dusting and washing of windows and walls, replacing light bulbs, and responding to vandalism, such as boarding-up broken windows. Snead claimed that upon hearing the list of duties the district specified, he explained that, as a night custodian at an elementary school, ladder use was extremely rare and was only necessary once or twice a month to replace burnt-out lightbulbs, if needed. He also explained that, in his entire 16-year career with the school district, he had never been asked, or required, to set-up decorations or special events, repair ceiling tiles, retrieve balls off the roof, or board-up broken windows, as these duties were all handled by the daytime custodian and/or the district’s maintenance department. Snead further explained that, as a night custodian, his primary job duties were to go classroom-by-classroom and clean up after the children, vacuum, wipe countertops, take out the trash, and then move-on as quickly as possible, as he was responsible for cleaning 40-plus classrooms and six restrooms at the school site. He added that ladders were used primarily in the summer months for “deep cleaning” while the students were gone and that during this time, all three custodians work together as a team to do high dusting and cleaning, and change all the burnt-out light bulbs, which would then last for several years. With respect to the high dusting and cleaning, Snead claimed that there was no place he couldn’t reach with the use of an extension pole — thus, he could still easily perform those duties during the summer and winter deep cleaning. However, he claimed that the only duty that would require a ladder was changing light bulbs, but that this was rare during the school year, and could easily be accommodated by reassigning light bulbs to any of the other two custodians or by having another custodian assist him with the bulbs (whereby he could stay on the ground, hold the ladder and pass the bulbs up, which was the proper procedure under Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations). He also claimed the task could be accomplished by having him simply trade or exchange duties with another custodian (whereby he would clean another custodian’s assigned classroom or restroom in exchange for that custodian taking care of his light bulb). However, Snead claimed that at the meeting, the school district had no response to his suggestions and, instead, simply told Snead that accommodating his ladder restriction would pose an “undue hardship” on the district (even though the district had yet to investigate any of the suggestions that he had just made). Plaintiff’s counsel contended that after the meeting, the director of human resources approached the head district custodian, as well as the school principal, and simply had both men confirm that her list of hypothetical ladder duties would generally require a ladder. However, counsel asserted that the director of human resources never asked either of the men if Snead actually had to perform any of those duties as part of his night custodian job. Counsel asserted that the director of human resources also did not ask about, or even mention, the possibility of Snead using an extension pole and/or trading duties with other custodians as a possible accommodation. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that even if the directed did mention those possible accommodations, neither of the men asked had any familiarity with Snead’s night-shift duties and could only speculate as to what was “expected” of custodians according to the inaccurate EFJA document. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel noted that the director of human resources never even approached any of the other two custodians who actually worked with Snead at Liberty Elementary School, where she could have easily inquired about the amount of ladder use at the school site and whether Snead’s suggestions would be possible. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that a few weeks after the meeting, on April 6, 2010, the director of human resources sent a letter to Snead, informing him again that it would be an “undue hardship” for the school district to accommodate his ladder restrictions, as she had “confirmed” that Snead was required to use ladders on a daily basis — citing back to the same hypothetical duties she had listed before. Counsel also contended that the letter went on to inform Snead that he would be placed on a “39-month re-employment list,” where he would be free to reapply if his medical restrictions changed in the future, but that in the meantime, Snead could simply “resign, retire, or apply for disability retirement.” The school district contended that Snead’s ladder duties (according to the EFJA document) were “essential,” regardless of whether he was actually required to perform those duties as part of his position. It also contended that accommodating Snead’s restrictions would have posed an “undue hardship”, i.e., a significant difficulty or expense., Prior to his discharge, Snead had worked as a night custodian for the Chino Valley Unified School District for 16 years. Snead claimed that he was shocked that, after 16 years of service, the school district would treat him the way it did. He described how he felt during the interactive process meeting, when the director of human resources and others ignored the information he was giving them and had an obvious intent to get rid of him rather than attempt any accommodations. Snead and his wife testified about the devastating financial impact his termination had on his family, who had lived paycheck-to-paycheck and were depended on him as the primary breadwinner. They also testified about how the termination affected Snead on a physical and emotional level. Snead’s wife explained how she and her husband had to struggle to pay bills and took on debt as a necessary means to survive. She claimed that one particularly low point for them occurred a few months after the termination, when they were forced to borrow money from their son’s college tuition loans in order to make ends meet.