Defendant’s Employee Assistance Programs, and Defendant’s leave of absence programs. Alejandro Depo., Exhs. Vol. I; Alejandro Depo., Vol. I Part 2, at 160:9-12. Plaintiff did not take advantage of any of these programs. Alejandro Depo., Vol. I Part 2, at 160:9-12, 167:21-168:4, 201:7-10. Furthermore, at no point did Plaintiff give McCale any indication that the accommodations offered by Defendant would not be sufficient, nor that Plaintiff could not provide notification to McCale by 9 a.m. any day Plaintiff would be absent. Alejandro Decl. ¶ 25; Alejandro Depo., Vol. I Part 2 at 184:1-6, 189:4-14, 190:9-13. The FEHA does not hold Defendant responsible for Plaintiffs failure to communicate essential information to Defendant, Nadaf-Rahrov, 166 Cal.App.4th at 984-85, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 (<HOLDING>).' Therefore, the undisputed evidence shows
holding that an employer is not liable where it takes reasonable steps to provide an accommodation and the employee is responsible for a breakdown in the process of identifying a reasonable accommodation holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation holding that in light of the defendants failure to engage in the interactive process liability would be appropriate if  reasonable accommodation would otherwise have been possible holding that the interactive process requires both sides to communicate directly and exchange essential information such that the employer may be liable only if the employer is responsible for the breakdown of the interactive process holding that if the employer requests reasonable medical evidence to support an employees claim of changed condition the employer is under no obligation to engage in further interactive processes if the employee fails to submit such evidence