On Feb. 5, 2002, plaintiff David Azzolin, 31, was hired as a Range Safety Officer by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, at their outdoor shooting range. During his employment, Azzolin raised concerns regarding what he believed to be hazardous levels of lead on the range. In February 2010, Azzolin suffered a seizure while on duty and was placed on a medical leave of absence for 17 months. During his leave, Azzolin filed a worker’s compensation claim, alleging lead on the range caused his seizure condition. (The Sheriff’s Department denied the claim.) On July 8, 2011, Azzolin’s workers’ compensation doctor released Azzolin back to work with “no restrictions, capable of all job duties,” but before he could return to work, the Sheriff’s Department required that Azzolin attend a “Return to Work Exam” at the County Center for Employee Health & Wellness. As a result, Azzolin was examined by a county physician, Dr. Jia Li, who utilized reports from Azzolin’s workers’ compensation matter to impose work restrictions of no exposure to irritant chemicals and dust for three months or until further notice. Azzolin claimed the Sheriff’s Department could accommodate the restrictions, but instead, without speaking to him, the Sheriff’s Department sent him a letter on July 15, 2011, which stated the department could not accommodate his temporary restrictions. The letter also stated Azzolin could request an interactive process meeting to discuss any questions or concerns. In response to the letter, Azzolin sent an e-mail on July 27, 2011, asking for accommodation. He claimed the Sheriff’s Department responded that his restrictions had not been lifted or modified to allow him to perform his job. Thereafter, Azzolin called the modified duty coordinator, Sergeant Dana Gould, and again asked for accommodation, stating 90 to 95 percent of his job could be performed without exposure to irritant chemicals or dusts (i.e., lead). However, Azzolin claimed Gould told him “the conversation is over.” On Aug. 5, 2011, Azzolin’s workers’ compensation attorney sent the Sheriff’s Department a letter stating that Azzolin could perform his duties with accommodations. On Sept. 2, 2011, the Sheriff’s Department terminated Azzolin’s employment, claiming that Azzolin failed to respond to the department’s offer to engage in the interactive process and that it was necessary for the department to hire a new range safety officer to fill Azzolin’s position. Azzolin’s worker’s compensation attorney sent another letter on Sept. 20, 2011, requesting the Sheriff’s Department engage in the interactive process, to which Azzolin claimed the Sheriff’s Department never responded. Azzolin sued the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department for disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to accommodate, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Azzolin claimed that the Sheriff’s Department was the party that failed to engage in the interactive process, in that it made no effort to determine whether accommodating him in the position of Range Safety Officer would create an undue hardship for the department. He contended that the Sheriff’s Department refused to engage in a good faith dialogue on the matter by outright denying his requests for accommodations or by not responding to letters sent by him and his workers’ compensation doctor. He further contended that during the pendency of his return to work, the Sheriff’s Department had already made the decision to replace him, selecting his replacement in March 2011, six months before the Sheriff’s Department terminated him. As such, Azzolin claimed the Sheriff’s Department had made its decision not to return him to his position well before he requested accommodation and, therefore, never had any intention of engaging in the interactive process. The Sheriff’s Department contended that it was Azzolin who failed to engage in the interactive process, in that he did not specifically request a meeting when the department offered him the opportunity in the letter dated July 15, 2011. It claimed Azzolin was hired as a contract employee for a specific task and could not be moved to another position. Thus, the Sheriff’s Department claimed that Azzolin was terminated for legitimate business reasons, as he failed to engage in the interactive process and was unable to perform the duties of a Range Safety Officer., Azzolin claimed he has not found new employment since being terminated. He alleged even if he finds new employment, it will not be in a similar salary and benefits range when compared to his Range Safety Officer position. Azzolin also claimed he suffered emotional distress as result of the Sheriff’s Department’s actions. Thus, Azzolin sought recovery of past and future lost earnings, as well as damages for his emotional distress.