In Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on the employee's claim brought under the Americans with Disability Act. ( Id. at p. 175.) The employee had stipulated as part of his receipt of workers compensation benefits that he was limited to working in an environment free from emotional stress, strain and heavy work. (Id. at p. 189.) Nevertheless, the only position that the employee sought with his former employer was that of safety police officer III, the duties of which the employee admitted involved stress. ( Id. at p. 190.) Given these facts, the appellate court concluded that the employee was judicially estopped from claiming that he was a qualified individual with a disability ( id. at pp. 190-191) and affirmed the grant of summary judgment. ( Id. at p. 175). In Jackson v. County of Los Angeles, a safety police officer employed by the County of Los Angeles filed a workers' compensation claim alleging he sustained injuries to his back, shoulder and psyche "while restraining a hyperactive patient" who was under the influence of the drug PCP. 22 The employee "continued to perform his job without the need for any accommodation" until he received a workers' compensation award containing "a work restriction mandating that his employment be free from emotional stress and strain." (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at page 175.) After the County determined it had no safety police officer positions which were free from emotional stress, the County placed the employee on medical leave. The employee filed a civil action alleging the County violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") when it failed to accommodate his disability and terminated his employment. He alleged "the County had treated him as if he had a disability when in fact he did not." (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at page 177.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision granting the County's summary judgment motion based on judicial estoppel. The appellate court found, to prevail on his ADA claim, the employee would have to prove "he could perform the essential functions of the job he held or desired, with or without reasonable accommodation." (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at page 189.) The court concluded, "to make such a showing, the employee would have to assert a position in this action that is totally inconsistent with the position he successfully pursued in the workers' compensation proceeding. The doctrine of judicial estoppel forecloses that attempt." (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at page 189.) The court applied the doctrine of judicial estoppel which "'. . . prevents a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position previously taken in the same or some earlier proceeding. The doctrine serves a clear purpose: to protect the integrity of the judicial process.' . . . Consequently, judicial estoppel is especially appropriate where a party has taken inconsistent positions in separate proceedings. Citations. " (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 181.) The court concluded that judicial estoppel "should apply when: (1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud or mistake. " (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 183.) In sum, a safety police officer employed by the County of Los Angeles filed a workers' compensation claim alleging he sustained injuries to his back, shoulder and psyche "while restraining a hyperactive patient" who was under the influence of the drug PCP. The employee "continued to perform his job without the need for any accommodation" until he received a workers' compensation award containing "a work restriction mandating that his employment be free from emotional stress and strain." After the county determined it had no safety police officer positions which were free from emotional stress, the county placed the employee on medical leave. The employee filed a civil action alleging the county violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA) when it failed to accommodate his disability and terminated his employment. He alleged "the County had treated him as if he had a disability when in fact he did not." The Court of Appeal concluded judicial estoppel "SHOULD APPLY WHEN: (1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake." (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 60 Cal. App. 4th at page 183.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision granting the county's summary judgment motion based on judicial estoppel. The appellate court found, to prevail on his ADA claim, the employee would have to prove "he could perform the essential functions of the job he held or desired, with or without reasonable accommodation." The court concluded, "To make such a showing, the employee would have to assert a position in this action that is totally inconsistent with the position he successfully pursued in the workers' compensation proceeding. The doctrine of judicial estoppel forecloses that attempt." (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 60 Cal. App. 4th at page 189.)