him according to its company policy. Makor filed suit against BNSF, alleging six claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of BNSF on all six claims. We affirm. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Entrepreneur Media v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2002). 1. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Makor’s claims alleging failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process. See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940(m), (n). To prevail on both of these claims, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a reasonable accommodation was available. Swanson v. Morongo Unified Sch. Dist., 232 Cal.App.4th 954, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 553, 566 (Ct. App. 2014) (<HOLDING>); Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 166
holding that the disabled individual bears the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that that accommodation is objectively reasonable and that the defendant was entitled to prevail because the plaintiffs proposed accommodation of remaining on unpaid medical leave until another customer service or receptionist position opened up was not a reasonable accommodation under the ada holding that a plaintiff must show the availability of reasonable accommodation to prevail on a failuretoaccommodate claim recognizing that in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a movant must show that he was prejudiced by his counsels performance holding that an alien must show error and substantial prejudice in order to prevail on a due process claim holding petitioner must show prejudice to prevail on due process claim