On May 19, 2011, plaintiff Tim Kranson, 44, a ramp agent for Federal Express Corp., was displaced from his position. Kranson was previously placed on job-protected medical leave under the California Family Rights Act, as well as under FedEx’s written policy and practice, after he was injured in February 2011 while performing his duties at work. After undergoing surgery, Kranson was taken off work by his treating physician until June 13, 2011. However, after Kranson had exhausted his medical leave, the full-time ramp agent position was eliminated. Kranson sued Federal Express Corp. for violations of the California Family Rights Act and Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. He alleged that the defendant’s actions constituted disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Kranson contended that when he was able to return to work, FedEx did not return him to his position as a full-time ramp agent because he had been out of work more than the 90 days provided under FedEx’s Policy 1-8. He alleged that FedEx’s medical leave policy was unlawful because it required the termination of an employee who is out on medical leave for more than 90 days, despite the fact that an employer has a legal duty to accommodate a disabled employee upon expiration of protected medical leave. Thus, Kranson claimed that FedEx discriminated and retaliated against him due to his disability and need for medical leave, and also failed to engage in the interactive process or accommodate his disability. FedEx claimed that it reasonably accommodated Kranson by virtue of his medical leave, extended medical leave, and unpaid personal leave. It contended that its practice does not count the first week of medical leave against job-protected leave, and that FedEx policy provides an additional week of job-protected leave beyond that required under the California Family Rights Act. FedEx also claimed that it had legitimate business reasons for taking the displacement action. It contended that the global economic downturn caused a reduction of freight and aircraft to unload at the Oakland Hub and as a result, it was over-staffed with full-time ramp agents and underwent a reduction in force. Thus, FedEx claimed that Kranson’s former full-time ramp agent position was eliminated due to the reduction in force, and not because of his disability or medical leave. FedEx further claimed that Kranson was discharged from his employment 132 days after his release to unrestricted duty because he did not accept any of the available positions offered to him, not because of his disability or medical leave., Kranson sought recovery of compensatory damages, including unpaid wages, lost wages, lost employee benefits; general damages for emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish; punitive damages; and attorney fees and costs. He also sought to determine whether FedEx’s medical leave policy constituted an unfair business practice under Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. In addition, Kranson sought a judicial declaration that FedEx Policy 1-8 violated California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.