SANDELL v. TAYLOR-LISTUG, INC Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>SANDELL v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> >SANDELL v.<br /> TAYLOR-LISTUG, INC</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 9/7/10<br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>COURT<br /> OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION<br /> ONE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>STATE<br /> OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=336 valign=top ><br /> <br/>ROBERT SANDELL,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Appellant,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>TAYLOR-LISTUG, INC.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendant and Respondent.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=288 valign=top ><br /> <br/> D055549<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> (Super. Ct. No. 37-2008-00064342-<br /> <br/> <br /> CU-OE-EC)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >Story continued from part I…..</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>b. <i >Sandell<br /> presented evidence sufficient to make a </i><br /> <br/><i<br /> > prima<br /> facie case that Taylor-Listug terminated his </i><br /> <br/><i<br /> > employment<br /> because of his disability </i><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Taylor-Listug<br /> contends that "Sandell's alleged disability was not known to Taylor<br /> Guitars," and that Sandell therefore cannot show that he was terminated<br /> "'because of' a disability." <br /> In making this assertion, Taylor-Listug misconstrues both the law and<br /> the evidence.<br /> <br/> There is<br /> abundant evidence that virtually everyone who worked with Sandell was aware<br /> that he often used a cane to walk. In<br /> deposition testimony, Listug and Taylor both admitted having seen Sandell walk<br /> with a cane during his employment at Taylor-Listug. For example, Listug was asked, "[O]ver<br /> the rest of Mr. Sandell's employment at Taylor,<br /> did he continue to often use a caneâ€