Justice Elizabeth Emerson
Zutrau, a 22 percent stakeholder in defendant corporation, alleged she was disabled because of her cancer. She sued to recover damages for disability discrimination and for retaliatory discharge. The parties did not dispute Zutrau was disabled under the Human Rights Law, but diverged on the issue of whether defendants reasonably accommodated her disability. The court found Zutrau failed to show, by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, that defendants failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. She claimed defendants failed to engage in the interactive process, but the court found the record did not reflect defendants failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff’s disability, or that majority shareholder Jansing refused to engage in the interactive process. The court further found Zutrau failed to establish that her termination was in retaliation for requesting an accommodation for her disability. It stated there was no evidence in the record Zutrau made any complaints about a violation of her rights before she was terminated, hence, her termination could not have been in retaliation for her request for a leave of absence. As such, the court ruled Zutrau failed to prevail on her claim of disability discrimination.
