Plaintiff alleged she was terminated from her employment due to her heart condition, and defendant alleged she was terminated due to the reorganization of her department. Evidence regarding the timing of the events, together with a reasonable inference that could be drawn from the fact that she was terminated and not reassigned or demoted, created a triable issue as to whether the reorganization was a pretext for disability discrimination. Plaintiff need not present evidence of a disability to present a prima facie case of failure to reasonably accommodate or to engage in the interactive process required by FEHA. Proof that defendant "deemed" or perceived plaintiff to be disabled is sufficient. Under law as it existed in 2011, a request for accommodation did not constitute protected activity for purposes of a retaliation claim under FEHA.