top of page

Group

Public·14 members
Dobrynya Shiryaev
Dobrynya Shiryaev

Prepar3D v3 Academic 3.2.3.16769 - Advanced Uninstaller PRO


Based on the testimony, there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that Gelfo was not disabled for purposes of the FWW, and the court should have granted Lockheed's JNOV motion.




p3d.lockheed.martin.prepar3d.v3.academic.3.2.3.16769



12. The trial court found that Lockheed's decision to cease paying Gelfo's weekly compensation checks did not constitute discrimination against Gelfo because he was disabled and he was thus not afforded the protections of the FEHA.


In a follow-up email on July 15, 2002, Harbeson wrote to inform Gelfo of a company policy prohibiting an accommodation that might \"pose a risk of serious injury or harm to self or others.\" Harbeson stated that personnel who did not have an actual disability could use light duty for up to 24 months, or a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and that Lockheed could rehire employees who quit or were terminated due to injury or illness. Harbeson again invited Gelfo to contact Lockheed to discuss his needs.


A supervisory employee may be appointed as a binding adjuster by the union. If an employee is injured in the course and scope of his or her employment, the supervisory employee \"is responsible for making a final decision on the claim and handling the claim with the employer.\" In this case, MacPherson handled Gelfo's claims. A Lockheed supervisory employee testified that Lockheed had changed its internal procedures after Gelfo's disability dispute arose in January 2000. More specifically, he testified that from that point forward, the company required two persons involved in claim handling, one an employee and one a supervisor, to evaluate claims together before making a final determination.


About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

Members

bottom of page