The jury in this case determined Neiman Marcus had failed to accommodate Nadaf’s disability or
engage in the interactive process, in violation of section 12940, subdivisions (m) and (n), and
had violated public policy in doing so. Neiman Marcus argued the judgment must be reversed
because Nadaf failed to present any admissible, substantial evidence of vacant positions for
which Nadaf was qualified during the relevant period. The Court disagreed
Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office
California Supreme Court cite
On July 29, 2024 the California Supreme Court granted Twanda Bailey’s appeal and reversed the
San Francisco Superior Court’s dismissal of the case and reversed the First District Court of Appeal’s upholding of the dismissal and thereby defined what creates a “hostile working
environment” in California.