With a jury verdict delivered on January 16, 2026, Garcia Hernandez Sahwney’s trial team, led by founding partner Bonny Garcia and assisted by firm Equity Partner Janet Ly, and associates Carlos Giron and Amber Dean, secured a complete defense verdict for Napa Valley Unified School District (District) in a multi-million-dollar employment action.
The case involved significant exposure and addressed a developing area of law: a claim under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for failure to accommodate based on an employee’s association with a disabled person. The former employee alleged she was forced to resign because she lacked adult daycare options for her disabled daughter and, following COVID, the District offered a 50% remote work accommodation while requiring in-person work the remainder of the time. The former employee never returned to in-person work, elected to retire, and later filed suit.
Because this theory of liability has been infrequently litigated and rarely tested before a jury, the case raised significant concerns for the District’s insurance carriers regarding potential expansion of FEHA liability into uncharted territory.
Working closely with the District, whose General Counsel is founding partner Mary Hernandez, the defense team understood that the District acted reasonably, in good faith, and in compliance with the law. In a post-COVID return to work environment in which the District was managing more than 300 accommodation requests, the District’s limited human resource staff worked to support employees, maintain effective operations, and preserve jobs in an area of unsettled law.
Although the former employee bore the burden of proof and the defense disputed the availability of associational disability liability under FEHA, the trial team made a strategic decision to affirmatively present evidence demonstrating the District’s reasonableness and good-faith efforts. Through disciplined trial advocacy and compelling witness testimony, the evidence showed that the District acted appropriately. Key testimony explained the operational need for part time in-person work, established that daycare options were available during and after COVID, and demonstrated that the former employee had applied for retirement well before claiming she was forced to resign.
The District’s witnesses were exceptionally prepared, credible, and authentic, and as the evidence unfolded, the jury’s focus shifted decisively toward the defense.
The jury returned a verdict of zero liability in favor of the District. This result reflects the firm’s depth of experience in jury trials and its understanding of the quality and credibility of evidence required to persuade jurors in complex employment cases. The verdict represents a significant win for public employers navigating post-COVID workplace accommodations and emerging theories of FEHA liability.
Jury Delivers Complete Defense Verdict for Napa Valley USD in High-Stakes FEHA Trial
With a jury verdict delivered on January 16, 2026, Garcia Hernandez Sahwney’s trial team, led by founding partner Bonny Garcia and assisted by firm Equity Partner Janet Ly, and associates Carlos Giron and Amber Dean, secured a complete defense verdict for Napa Valley Unified School District (District) in a multi-million-dollar employment action.
The case involved significant exposure and addressed a developing area of law: a claim under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for failure to accommodate based on an employee’s association with a disabled person. The former employee alleged she was forced to resign because she lacked adult daycare options for her disabled daughter and, following COVID, the District offered a 50% remote work accommodation while requiring in-person work the remainder of the time. The former employee never returned to in-person work, elected to retire, and later filed suit.
Because this theory of liability has been infrequently litigated and rarely tested before a jury, the case raised significant concerns for the District’s insurance carriers regarding potential expansion of FEHA liability into uncharted territory.
Working closely with the District, whose General Counsel is founding partner Mary Hernandez, the defense team understood that the District acted reasonably, in good faith, and in compliance with the law. In a post-COVID return to work environment in which the District was managing more than 300 accommodation requests, the District’s limited human resource staff worked to support employees, maintain effective operations, and preserve jobs in an area of unsettled law.
Although the former employee bore the burden of proof and the defense disputed the availability of associational disability liability under FEHA, the trial team made a strategic decision to affirmatively present evidence demonstrating the District’s reasonableness and good-faith efforts. Through disciplined trial advocacy and compelling witness testimony, the evidence showed that the District acted appropriately. Key testimony explained the operational need for part time in-person work, established that daycare options were available during and after COVID, and demonstrated that the former employee had applied for retirement well before claiming she was forced to resign.
The District’s witnesses were exceptionally prepared, credible, and authentic, and as the evidence unfolded, the jury’s focus shifted decisively toward the defense.
The jury returned a verdict of zero liability in favor of the District. This result reflects the firm’s depth of experience in jury trials and its understanding of the quality and credibility of evidence required to persuade jurors in complex employment cases. The verdict represents a significant win for public employers navigating post-COVID workplace accommodations and emerging theories of FEHA liability.
