Ninth Circuit: Employee Who Threatens to Kill Co-Workers Not "Qualified Individual with Disability"

Timothy Mayo was a welder. He made some specific threats to kill certain supervisors at his employer, PCC Structurals, Inc.  Co-workers complained.  The company sent him home.  The police visited him and he checked into a hospital.  The company terminated his employment.

Mayo sued under Oregon's version of the ADA, which is modeled under the federal statute. The 9th circuit reviewed the employer's successful motion for summary judgment.

The court decided that a person who makes violent threats against co-workers cannot claim protection under disability discrimination laws:

Even if Mayo were disabled (which we assume for this appeal), he cannot show that he was qualified at the time of his discharge. An essential function of almost every job is the ability to appropriately handle stress and interact with others. See Williams v. Motorola, Inc., 303 F.3d 1284, 1290 (11th Cir. 2002). And while an employee can be qualified despite adverse reactions to stress, he is not qualified when that stress leads him to threaten to kill his co-workers in chilling detail and on multiple occasions (here, at least five times). This vastly disproportionate reaction demonstrated that Mayo could not perform an “essential function” of his job, and was not a “qualified individual.” This is true regardless of whether Mayo’s threats stemmed from his major depressive disorder. Cf. Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 906 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Attempting to fire a weapon at individuals is the kind of egregious and criminal conduct which employees are responsible for regardless of any disability.”).

The court was careful to limit its holding to serious threats of violence or harm, in a footnote:

We emphasize that we only address the extreme facts before us in this case: an employee who makes serious and credible threats of violence toward his co-workers. We do not suggest that off-handed expressions of frustration or inappropriate jokes necessarily render an employee not qualified. Nor do we imply that employees who are simply rude, gruff, or unpleasant fall in the same category as Mayo. See U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, supra, at *15 (advising that an “anti-social” employee with a “psychiatric disability” can be a “qualified individual,” even if he is “abrupt and rude”).

The court also distinguished its line of cases in which it has excused "conduct resulting from a disability":

This ruling is consistent with our cases holding that “conduct resulting from a disability is considered to be part of the disability, rather than a separate basis for termination.” Humphrey v. Mem’l Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128, 1139–40 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Gambini v. Total Renal Care, Inc., 486 F.3d 1087, 1094–95 (9th Cir. 2007); Dark v. Curry County, 451 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 2006). Unlike in Humphrey, Gambini, and Dark, we do not need to consider whether PCC has offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Mayo, as he has failed to establish a prima facie case at step one of the McDonnell Douglas framework.

Only Gambini involved hostile action by the employee.  And the court pointed out that the employer in that case did not argue that Gambini was not a "qualified individual" on appeal.

Summing up, after recognizing the serious problems of mental illness in society, the court remarked:

we disagree with Mayo that employers must simply cross their fingers and hope that violent threats ring hollow. All too often Americans suffer the tragic consequences of disgruntled employees targeting and killing their co-workers. While the ADA and Oregon disability law protect important individual rights, they do not require employers to play dice with the lives of their workforce. We thus conclude that PCC’s actions in this case were lawful.

This case is Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc. and the opinion is here. 

California Governor Signs Bill Making Request for Reasonable Accommodation Grounds for Retaliation Claim Under FEHA

The Courts of Appeal have held that an employee's requesting reasonable accommodation is not a "protected activity" for which a retaliation claim will lie under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. (See, for example, Rope v. Auto-Chlor, discussed here).  That is because protected activity was (previously) defined as "opposing" some unlawful practice, or participation in an investigation or proceeding involving FEHA-based claims.  A request for accommodation is not "opposing" an unlawful practice, so it did not fall within the previous definition.

Not to worry. The Legislature just added to the list of protected activities an employee's request for accommodation, whether or not it is granted.  So, when an employer denies reasonable accommodation, that was and is separately actionable. Now, the employee likely will assert a retaliation claim as well, claiming that the denial was in retaliation for the employee's making the request.  

May the employer lawfully deny an accommodation because it's not "reasonable" or because the employee is not a "qualified individual," but still be liable for retaliation? We'll see how the courts react.

The new law is AB 987, text here.

Court of Appeal: Claimed Inability to Work With Particular Supervisor Need Not Be Accommodated

An employee clashes with her manager, takes a medical leave of absence for "stress," receives repeated extensions, and her doctor says she can come back to work, but only under a new manager.  Heard that one before?   That's what Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Medical Foundation is about.

The plaintiff-employee took CFRA/FMLA leave initially. Then she exhausted it and returned to work. Her manager immediately gave her a negative evaluation. The regional manager, Perry, began to single plaintiff out for negative treatment, such as being curt with plaintiff while being friendly with others. Then plaintiff's boss accused the plaintiff of being irresponsible with her badge and Perry allegedly grabbed her arm.  The plaintiff had a "panic attack," and did not return to work again.

Sutter granted a series of extended absences as temporary accommodations.  Plaintiff's doctor continued to insist that she could return to work under a new supervisor and perform her duties without restriction.  The doctor then certified that plaintiff could return to work in her original department, but on light duty.  The doctor would not commit to a return to work date when the plaintiff could perform her essential functions with or without an accommodation (that did not include a new supervisor).

Sutter then drew the line:

On January 24, 2011, Sutter informed plaintiff (1) that Dr. Chen had stated on January 6, 2011, that plaintiff could not return to work then, but that plaintiff wanted to return on March 1, 2011, on light duty in the Connecting to Work Program; (2) that Dr. Chen did not provide any information as to if or when plaintiff would be able to return to her clinical assistant position; (3) that there was no information to support a conclusion that additional leave as an accommodation would effectuate plaintiff‟s return as a clinical assistant; and (4) that if plaintiff did not provide such information by January 31, 2011, her employment would be terminated February 1, 2011.

Plaintiff and her doctor apparently did not get the gist of this communication.

On January 28, 2011, Dr. Chen informed Sutter that plaintiff was not medically cleared to return to work at that point, and that plaintiff would continue her regimen of psychotherapy and medications. In her deposition, plaintiff testified she did not feel she could have returned to work in the Shared Services Department with regional manager Perry or supervisor Prince on February 1, 2011. Plaintiff also testified at her deposition
that at the time of her termination, she "was willing to try‟ to return to work on March 1, 2011, in the Shared Services Department under manager Perry.

Sutter then terminated the plaintiff's employment on February 1, 2011.

So, the plaintiff sued for disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent, and denial of accommodation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.

The basis for the Court of Appeal's decision is significant.  The Court reaffirmed previous case law in which the court held that inability to work for a particular supervisor is not a covered disability:

An employee's inability to work under a particular supervisor because of anxiety and stress related to the supervisor‟s standard oversight of the employee‟s job performance does not constitute a disability under FEHA. (Hobson v. Raychem Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 614, 628 (Hobson) [“the inability to perform one particular job, or to work under a particular supervisor, does not constitute a qualified disability” under FEHA (italics added)]; see Weiler v. Household Finance Corp. (7th Cir. 1996) 101 F.3d 519, 522, 524-525 [both Hobson and Weiler apply the narrower federal test of disability of “substantially limits” a major life activity, rather than the broader California test of simply “limits”; Hobson was disapproved on this point in Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1019, 1031, fn. 6] (Colmenares).)

As stated above, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the Hobson decision applied a less employee-friendly definition of disability. But the Court then held that even under the current formulation, inability to work for the current supervisor is not a disability, because it does not "limit" the major life activity of working.

The Court then held that because the plaintiff did not have a disability, she could not succeed under her claims for common law wrongful termination, denial of accommodation or failure to engage in the interactive process.

Of note, the Court of Appeal remanded the case to the trial court regarding its award of costs to Sutter.  Costs no longer are awarded to prevailing defendants as a matter of right in FEHA cases, following the California Supreme Court's decision in Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97 (discussed here). 

This case is Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Med. Foundation, and the opinion is here.

U.S. Supreme Court: Employer's Motivation Rather than Knowledge Is Key to Liability Under Title VII

Samantha Elauf applied to work for Abercrombie & Fitch.  She wore a headscarf during the application process.  A&F has in place a no-headgear "look" policy.   The hiring managers determined that her head scarf would violate that policy.

At least one hiring manager suspected that Elauf wore the headscarf as a religious practice.  She so informed the district manager, who decided that the scarf would violate the "look" policy and that she would not be hired.

No one asked Elauf if the scarf was a religious practice, or investigated whether she would work without it.  No one sought to determine if allowing the scare would be an accommodation for a religious practice, or whether flexing the policy would be an undue hardship.  Apparently seeking to avoid these issues, they just turned her down for the job.

The EEOC sued on Elauf's behalf.   The dispute before the court boiled down to whether the Company could be liable for intentional discrimination when it did not know Ms. Elauf wore the scarf for religious reasons, but at least one manager surmised that there was a religious connection to her garb.  The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of the EEOC.  But the court of appeals reversed and granted summary judgment in favor of A&F.

Justice Scalia, writing for a majority of 7, decided that A&F could violate Title VII without actual knowledge that a religious practice was at issue.  Rather, for the Court, the issue was the motivation of the hiring managers.

First, the Court noted that under Title VII (as opposed to the ADA), the only claims available are disparate treatment or disparate impact. Therefore, "denial of religious accommodation" alone is not a claim under Title VII.   That being the case, the plaintiff can win only by proving that the company's failure to hire (or other adverse action) is motivated by an illegal criterion:

The disparate-treatment provision forbids employers to: (1) “fail . . . to hire” an applicant (2) “because of ” (3) “such individual’s . . . religion” (which includes his religious practice). Here, of course, Abercrombie (1) failed to hire Elauf. The parties concede that (if Elauf sincerely believes that her religion so requires) Elauf’s wearing of a head- scarf is (3) a “religious practice.” All that remains is whether she was not hired (2) “because of” her religious practice.

 *  *  *

the intentional discrimination provision prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the actor’s knowledge. Motive and knowledge are separate concepts. An employer who has actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation does not violate Title VII by refusing to hire an applicant if avoiding that accommodation is not his motive. Conversely, an employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate Title VII even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed.

Thus, the rule for disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is straightforward: An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions. For example, suppose that an employer thinks (though he does not know for certain) that a job applicant may be an orthodox Jew who will observe the Sabbath, and thus be unable to work on Saturdays. If the applicant actually requires an accommodation of that religious practice, and the employer’s desire to avoid the prospective accommodation is a motivating factor in his decision, the employer violates Title VII.

Let us remember that this case involves a question of fact: did the company deny employment "because" she was Muslim and might seek a relaxing of the look rule?  There was evidence of that motivation in the record.  Therefore, the Court's only ruling was that the court of appeals should not have granted summary judgment. It remains to be seen if a jury would find that A&F denied employment motivated by the possibility of religious accommodation, or because they don't hire anyone with a headscarf.  Given the hiring manager's articulated suspicion, this one is not likely to go the employer's way.

This case opens up employers to claims that are based on "perceived" religious practice.  That is the employer can be wrong and still be held liable. Motivation is almost never provable before trial.  

This case also establishes that under Title VII, the employee would have to prove the motivation.  That is the employee has to prove the employer denied employment because it did not wish to accommodate the applicant. 

This case could have been avoided had management simply asked the applicant if she could abide by the look policy if hired.  That's a perfectly legal question. Then the applicant could have said "I need to wear a scarf as a religious practice."  At that point, the company would be faced with two options: accommodate, or claim undue burden. In most cases, a relaxation of a dress code can be a form of accommodation.  

Justice Thomas and Alito wrote separate concurrences in the judgment. Both believed the circuit court should not have granted summary judgment in favor of A&F, and correctly so.  But neither agreed with the majority opinion's rationale.  Justice Thomas felt that the case was one of disparate impact discrimination, seeming to ignore the evidence of unlawful bias by the hiring manager.  Justice Alito appears to claim that the case was one of reasonable accommodation law rather than intentional discrimination, i.e., failure to hire.  (Amateur Justice Valenza says they're both incorrect).

This case is EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch and the opinion is here. 

Court of Appeal: No Duty to Remove Essential Job Functions as Reasonable Accommodation and More...

The Court of Appeal in Nealy v. City of Santa Monica upheld summary judgment in a disability discrimination case.  The case involved an injured "solid waste equipment operator," which may mean garbage truck operator.  Nealy injured his right knee lifting a large bin, leading to several surgeries.

In a nutshell, the City allowed Nealy a long leave of absence. They met with him several times. His doctors placed many physical restrictions on him, precluding him from the heavy lifting required of the solid waste equipment operator.   Nealy asked for accommodations, including removing lifting requirements and allowing Nealy to work on one particular type of truck. The City took the position it was not required to remove essential job functions.  The City also looked into transfers. But  Nealy apparently was not qualified for the open, available jobs.

Nealy sued for disparate treatment, denial of reasonable accommodation, and failure to engage in the interactive process. He also sued for retaliation.  The Court of Appeal upheld summary judgment on several grounds.  The explanation of the law on each claim is clear and will help employers understand the legal issues. So, here goes:

Reasonable accommodation

The elements of a reasonable accommodation cause of action are (1) the employee suffered a disability, (2) the employee could perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation, and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the employee’s disability. (Wilson v. County of Orange (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1192; Nadaf-Rahrov, supra, at p. 977.)  * * *  The fact that one essential function may be up for debate does not preclude summary judgment if the employee cannot perform other essential functions even with accommodation.

In this case, there was copious evidence that Nealy could not perform one or more of the job's essential functions. The Court rejected his arguments about accommodations via removal of essential functions. 

FEHA does not obligate the employer to accommodate the employee by excusing him or her from the performance of essential functions. (Lui v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 962, 985.) There is no dispute heavy lifting was an essential function of the solid waste equipment operator—even for those who operated the automated side loader. 

The Court then turned to reassignment as a form of accommodation.  Here's the legal standard:

FEHA requires the employer to offer the employee “comparable” or “lower graded” vacant positions for which he or she is qualified. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11068, subd. (d)(1), (2).) FEHA does not require a reassignment, however, if there is no vacant position for which the employee is qualified. (Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 757, 767.) Additionally, FEHA does not require the employer to promote the employee or create a new position for the employee to a greater extent than it would create a new position for any employee, regardless of disability. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11068, subd. (d)(4); Spitzer, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 1389.)  * * * 

In cases when courts have found a triable issue on reassignment, the employees have adduced evidence obtained through discovery that vacant positions for which they were qualified existed during the relevant period, but the employer failed to offer the positions to them. (Nadaf-Rahrov, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 968; Spitzer, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 1390.) Nealy has not adduced any such evidence here to dispute the City’s evidence that no other vacant positions for which he was qualified existed during the relevant period in 2010. Under FEHA, the City was thus relieved of its duty to reassign Nealy. (Spitzer, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 1389.)  * * * 

 In short, an employer can prevail on summary judgment on a claim of failure to reasonably accommodate by establishing through undisputed facts that “there simply was no vacant position within the employer’s organization for which the disabled employee was qualified and which the disabled employee was capable of performing with or without accommodation . . . .”

Disparate treatment

The Court also held that because Nealy was not a "qualified individual," he could not prevail on a disability discrimination claim.

The showing required is identical to that required for a cause of action for failure to reasonably accommodate. That is, a qualified individual is someone who is able to perform the essential functions of his or her job, with or without reasonable accommodation. (Id. at p. 262.) FEHA permitted the City to discharge Nealy if he was unable to perform the essential functions of his job even with reasonable accommodations. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a)(1) [“This part does not prohibit an employer from . . . discharging an employee with a physical or mental disability . . . where the employee, because of his or her physical or mental disability, is unable to perform his or her essential duties even with reasonable accommodations . . . .”]; Green v. State of California, supra, at p. 262.) 

Interactive Process

To prevail on a claim for failure to engage in the interactive process, the employee must identify a reasonable accommodation that would have been available at the time the interactive process occurred. (Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1018 (Scotch); Nadaf-Rahrov, supra, at p. 984.) “An employee cannot necessarily be expected to identify and request all possible accommodations during the interactive process itself because ‘“‘[e]mployees do not have at their disposal the extensive information concerning possible alternative positions or possible accommodations which employers have . . . .’”’” (Scotch, supra, at p. 1018.) But the employee should be able to identify specific, available reasonable accommodations through the litigation process, and particularly by the time the parties have conducted discovery and reached the summary judgment stage. (Id. at p. 1019.) * * * *

The only accommodations Nealy argues should have been available are (1) restructuring his old job so that he did not lift heavy objects or kneel; (2) assigning him to the automated side loader permanently; (3) reassigning him to another position; and (4) retraining. As we concluded above, the first two were not reasonable accommodations allowing him to perform the essential functions of the job, and the third was not reasonable because there were no vacant positions for which he was qualified. The fourth—retraining—does not assist Nealy. He provides absolutely no detail as to what type of retraining would have enabled him to perform the solid waste equipment operator job or some other vacant position. The bare assertion that the City should have provided retraining does not create a triable issue of fact. 

Retaliation

Nealy also lost on his retaliation claim.  The Court of Appeal made clear that he had not "engaged in a protected activity" merely by asking for a reasonable accommodation. The Court listed what counts as protected activity under the statute.

FEHA makes it unlawful for the employer to discharge or discriminate against an employee because he or she has “opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.” (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h).) Thus, protected activity takes the form of opposing any practices forbidden by FEHA or participating in any proceeding conducted by the DFEH or the State Fair Employment and Housing Council (FEHC). (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §§ 11002, subds. (a), (b), 11021, subd. (a).) 

Opposing practices forbidden by FEHA includes seeking the advice of the DFEH or FEHC; assisting or advising any person in seeking the advice of the DFEH or FEHC; opposing employment practices the employee reasonably believes to exist and believes to be a violation of FEHA; participating in an activity perceived by the employer as opposition to discrimination; or contacting, communicating with, or participating in the proceeding of a local human rights or civil rights agency regarding employment discrimination.  * * * * 

 And then the Court emphasized:

Nealy does not identify any activity that qualifies as protected activity. He contends his protected activity was seeking the City’s assistance to return to work—that is, seeking reasonable accommodation—and initiating the interactive process. These acts alone do not amount to “oppos[ing] any practices forbidden under” FEHA or participating in DFEH or FEHC proceedings. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h); Rope, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 652.) If they did, this interpretation of protected activity “‘would significantly blur and perhaps obliterate the distinction between an action for failure to accommodate or engage in the interactive process and retaliation.’” (Rope, supra, at p. 653.) 

* * * *

This case is Nealy v. City of Santa Monica and the opinion is here.


 

Ninth Circuit: Summary Judgment in Employment Discrimination Cases Should Not Happen Much

The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment in a disability discrimination case alleged under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.  We can't even say what the facts are, because the court does not recite them.

What we do know is:

To establish that he was terminated by Sears because of his disability, Nigro submitted a declaration stating that on June 29, 2009, he had a phone conversation with Larry Foerster, General Manager of the Sears Carlsbad store at which Nigro worked, and Foerster told him that “[i]f you're going to stick with being sick, it's not helping your situation. It is what it is. You're not getting paid, and you're not going to be accommodated.” Nigro also testified in his deposition that Sears's District Facilities Manager Alan Kamisugu told him not to be concerned about his pay issue because Chris Adams, Sears's District General Manager, had indicated to Kamisugu that Nigro was “not going to be here anymore.” The district court disregarded the evidence proffered by Nigro, on the basis that “the source of this evidence is Nigro's own self-serving testimony.”
* * * *
Nigro's direct supervisor Jason Foss also testified that Chris Adams said to him—referring to Nigro—that “I'm done with that guy .” 

What's so unusual about this case, warranting the court to publish the opinion?  Maybe it's because the district court found that Nigro's declaration could be disregarded as "self-serving."  The court explained that is not a basis to ignore the plaintiff's declaration:

We have previously acknowledged that declarations are often self-serving, and this is properly so because the party submitting it would use the declaration to support his or her position. S.E.C. v. Phan, 500 F.3d 895, 909 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that district court erred in disregarding declarations as “uncorroborated and self-serving”). The source of the evidence may have some bearing on its credibility, and thus on the weight it may be given by a trier of fact. But that evidence is to a degree self-serving is not a basis for the district court to disregard the evidence at the summary judgment stage. See 10A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2727 (3d ed. 2011) (“[F]acts asserted by the party opposing the [summary judgment] motion, if supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material, are regarded as true.”). Here, Nigro's declaration and deposition testimony, albeit uncorroborated and self-serving, were sufficient to establish a genuine dispute of material fact on Sears's discriminatory animus. We conclude that the district court erred in disregarding Nigro's testimony in granting Sears's motion for summary judgment. 

The Court also reversed summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims for denial of accommodation and failure to engage in the interactive process, also on the basis of alleged hostility by General Manager, Foerster. 

The Court then commented about summary judgment in discrimination cases as follows, which is why I entitled this post the way I did:

We have previously held in several cases that it should not take much for plaintiff in a discrimination case to overcome a summary judgment motion. See, e.g., Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir.2008); Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir.2008); Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919, 939 (9th Cir.2007); Dominguez–Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dep't, 424 F.3d 1027, 1042 (9th Cir.2005); Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trustees, 225 F.3d 1115, 1124 (9th Cir.2000). “This is because the ultimate question is one that can only be resolved through a searching inquiry—one that is most appropriately conducted by a factfinder, upon a full record.” Id.

Here, Nigro presented several state law claims that deserved trial. It should not take a whole lot of evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact in a disability discrimination case, at least where the fact issue on discrimination is genuine and the disability would not preclude gainful employment of a person working with accommodation. We acknowledge that this is not a wholly one-sided case on the side of Nigro, and Sears put forward substantial evidence showing that it had a non-discriminatory reason for terminating Nigro's employment, i.e., Sears's position that Nigro did not comply with Sears's attendance and leave policies resulting in job abandonment. It is possible that Sears will prevail at trial, but the statements attributed to Sears's supervisors by Nigro are, if not dispositive, sufficient to raise a genuine issue for the trier of fact. See Metoyer, 504 F.3d at 939 (holding that an employer's evidence of a non-discriminatory motive does not warrant entry of summary judgment when the employee also proffered evidence to the contrary).

Sure, it's still possible to win summary judgment in state and federal court.  However, there of late has been a shift in courts' willingness to grant summary judgment, at least in my opinion.  The trial courts may fear reversal, as appellate courts frequently do.  Trial courts may perceive that employers rarely take cases to trial and settle, which makes it unlikely that a courtroom will be clogged with cases that cannot be won at trial.  Who knows why the pendulum is shifting.  But it is.  

Employers and their lawyers are going to have to decide how to address this shift, whether it be arbitration in lieu of the court system, taking every case to trial until the courts shift back towards summary judgment, lobbying for a change in the law, or something else. 

This case is Nigro v. Sears Roebuck & Co. and the opinion is here. 

A Pot Pourri of Recent Employment Law Decisions

Here are some recent significant California employment law developments I missed. Long post, but chock full of employment law goodness. Or something:

Employer's Summary Judgment on Disability Discrimination and Related Claims
The court of appeal in Swanson v. Morongo Unified School District (opinion here) reversed summary judgment in favor of the school district.

Swanson was a teacher who was treated with breast cancer.  The school district voted not to renew her contract based on her performance.  Swanson believed the district's vote was based on her cancer and treatment.  She also claimed that the district failed to accommodate her by refusing to allow her to teach a second grade class rather than the assignment they gave her, and failed to adequately engage in the "interactive process."

On the discrimination claim, the court of appeal acknowledged the district demonstrated Swanson's poor performance as a legitimate reason.  That shifted the burden to Swanson to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether discrimination motivated the district, rather than performance. Here is the pretext analysis:

Swanson had to present evidence showing (1) the District’s stated reason for not renewing her contract was untrue or pretextual; (2) the District acted with a discriminatory animus in not renewing her contract; or (3) a combination of the two. *** We conclude Swanson met this burden by presenting evidence establishing a triable issue of fact on whether the District intentionally discriminated against her when making its teaching assignments and its treatment of her after her cancer diagnosis and medical leaves. ***We conclude Swanson met this burden by presenting evidence establishing a triable issue of fact on whether the District intentionally discriminated against her when making its teaching assignments and its treatment of her after her cancer diagnosis and medical leaves. 

Here's the evidence the court found significant:

The evidence the parties presented establishes the following disputed facts creating a triable issue on Swanson’s liability theory: (1) Swanson performed well in the teaching assignments she held during her first two years with the District, but the District gave her a new teaching assignment for the first full school year after she completed her cancer treatments; (2) the District gave Swanson the new assignment knowing it would require her to spend additional time planning and preparing to teach her new class and Swanson’s weakened health condition impaired her ability to do so; (3) the District denied Swanson’s request to teach a second grade class similar to one she recently had taught at her previous school, and instead assigned the available second grade class to another teacher; (4) the District assigned Swanson to teach a kindergarten class even though she had not taught kindergarten in nearly 30 years and expressed concern her weakened immune system could not protect her from the many illnesses prevalent in kindergarten classes; (5) although promising to do so, Lowe did not provide Swanson the preevaluation format she needed to prepare for her first series of teacher observations; (6) the District did not provide Swanson the mentor teacher she requested after receiving the remediation plan or any of the other training or assistance she requested; (7) Lowe told Swanson the District wanted him to make a determination on her employment status before he had time to complete the second series of teacher observations; (8) Lowe asked Swanson to resign her teaching position even though he gave her a positive review on the first teaching observation following the remediation plan and implied her review on the second observation also would be positive; and (9) the District’s Board of Education voted not to renew Swanson’s contract before she completed the remediation plan and all of the observations were conducted.

This is to say that the court of appeal felt that a jury should decide whether the district's personnel actions against Swanson that led to her poor performance were motivated by her disability. Therefore, to win these cases, the employer should show on summary judgment that it treated the plaintiff the same as the other, similarly situated, employees.

On the failure to accommodate claim, the plaintiff claimed she would have been able to perform her essential job functions if she was assigned to teach a second grade class, rather than the kindergarten class she was assigned. Although the district showed the court several accommodations it provided, the court was unpersuaded that the district was entitled to summary judgment:

Swanson does not claim the District failed to grant her leave or any other scheduling accommodation. Instead, she alleges the District failed to reasonably accommodate her cancer-related conditions because it refused to provide her the accommodation she sought after the District decided to move her out of the reading specialist position she held during the 2007/2008 school year. Specifically, she alleges the District refused her request to teach an available second grade class. According to Swanson, the second grade class assignment was a reasonable accommodation that would allow her to perform her essential job functions because she recently had taught a second grade class when working in another district, and therefore was familiar with the curriculum and children of that age. Swanson alleged any other new teaching assignment would require additional time to prepare and plan lessons, but the effect of her cancer treatments jeopardized her ability to prepare for her new assignment. 

         *  *  *

To meet its initial burden on Swanson’s failure to accommodate claims, the District therefore had to present evidence showing the second grade position Swanson sought was not available or otherwise was not a reasonable accommodation, or the fifth grade or kindergarten assignments the District offered were reasonable accommodations that would have allowed Swanson to adequately perform her essential job functions. The District produced no such evidence. 

The court also held that the district did not adequately engage in the interactive process to determine an accommodation:

The District contends Swanson’s interactive process claims fail because it engaged in the interactive process by switching her from fifth grade to kindergarten when she objected to the fifth grade assignment. That contention is not adequate to satisfy the District’s initial burden on summary judgment. The FEHA required the District to engage in an ongoing dialogue regarding the accommodations Swanson believed she needed to mitigate her cancer-related conditions, but the District failed to present any evidence to show it engaged Swanson in such a dialogue. For example, the District offers no evidence to show it discussed with Swanson the second grade assignment she sought or provided any explanation why it could not grant her request as a reasonable accommodation. To the contrary, the evidence shows the District simply assigned Swanson to teach kindergarten and failed to engage in any further discussion with her. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the interactive process claims. 

Arbitration Compelled Even Though Insufficient Proof Unsigned Arbitration Policy Was in Effect

Stephanie Cruise signed an employment application with Kroger Corporation, in which she agreed to mandatory, final, binding arbitration. The application referenced a separate mediation and arbitration policy, which was "incorporated by reference."  After her termination, Cruise sued Kroger. Kroger moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, holding that Kroger had not proved that Cruise had received the arbitration policy, or that the one attached to the motion was the one she had allegedly received.

The court of appeal reversed the trial court and ordered arbitration. The court held that the following language in the application "eliminate[d]" Cruise's argument there was no agreement to arbitrate:

“MANDATORY FINAL & BINDING ARBITRATION: I acknowledge and understand that the Company has a Dispute Resolution Program that includes a Mediation & Binding Arbitration Policy (the ‘Policy’) applicable to all employees and applicants for employment . . . . I acknowledge, understand and agree that the Policy is incorporated into this Employment Application by this reference as though it is set forth in full, . . . the Policy applies to any employment-related disputes that exist or arise between Employees and the Company . . . and that the Policy requires that any Employee who wishes to initiate or participate in formal proceedings to resolve any Covered Disputes must submit the claims or disputes to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Policy.” (Italics added.)

The court rejected Cruise's argument that the employer did not sign the application, reasoning that the employer submitted the application to Cruise of signature, and that it was Kroger's own application, after all.

BUT, what of the policy?  The court of appeal accepted the trial court's conclusion that the employer had not established the existence of the policy, which governed the terms and procedures re arbitration. The court of appeal, however, ruled that Cruise was still obligated to arbitrate, only under the California Arbitration Act.

The only impact of Kroger‟s inability to establish the contents of the 2007 Arbitration Policy is that Kroger failed to establish that the parties agreed to govern their arbitration by procedures different from those prescribed in the CAA (§ 1280 et seq.). Unless the parties otherwise agree, the conduct of an arbitration proceeding is controlled by the CAA. (See, e.g., §§ 1281.6, 1282, 1282.2.) Here, because Kroger failed to establish an agreement to the contrary, the instant arbitration proceeding is to be governed by the procedures set forth in the CAA. Because this arbitration is controlled by California statutory and case law, Cruise‟s arguments that Kroger‟s Arbitration Policy is unconscionable, both procedurally and substantively, are meritless.

If this case remains good law, then (1) employers can include clear agreements to arbitrate in applications and (2) they can rely on the California Arbitration Act rather than prescribe specific procedures.

This case is Cruise v. Kroger Co .and the opinion is here.

                                                                 * * *
Here are some narrow decisions, but which may contain helpful holdings for other cases.

LA Hotel Service Charge Ordinance - Class Action - UCL Claim 

The court of appeal in Audio Visual Services Group, Inc. v. Superior Court opinion here, handled a narrow issue: whether Los Angeles's Hotel Service Charge Reform Ordinance applied to third party employees who do not traditionally depend on tips.  The Ordinance requires certain hotels to pay certain employees all service charges added to customers bills.  The Audio Visual employees provided AV services to hotels, for which they charged a fee plus a service charge. The plaintiffs sued, claiming they were owed that service charge. The Court of Appeal issued a writ, sustaining the employer's demurrer to the class complaint (extraordinary in and of itself). The court of appeal decided that the ordinance does not apply to Audio Visual's employees.  Of note, the court clearly held that the employees "unfair competition claim" under Business and Professions Code section 17200 was not actionable because the statutory claim also was without merit. So, this case can help in other UCL actions. Money quote:

In light of our construction of the Ordinance that Solares, an audio-visual technician, is not among the class of hotel workers entitled to be paid service charges pursuant to the Ordinance, Solares cannot assert a UCL claim against PSAV. Business and Professions Code section 17200 defines “unfair competition” as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with [Business and Professions Code ] Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.” The UCL claim is dependent upon a violation of the Ordinance. Thus, the class action complaint failed to state a cause of action.

U.S. Supreme Court: Whistle Blower Under Homeland Security Act Protected

Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean (opinion here)  involves an Air Marshall who reported  to MSNBC that the TSA had canceled Air Marshall missions during a time when there was a heightened security alert regarding possible Al Qaeda highjackings.  He had been told that TSA canceled missions to save money.  After MacLean made the disclosure, TSA reversed its position under pressure from Congress.

The TSA discovered MacLean was the leaker and fired him in 2006.  He sued for whistleblower retaliation. TSA argued that MacLean's disclosure was "specifically prohibited" by its regulation, which was as good as "law." TSA had issued regulations prohibiting disclosure of what they called "sensitive security information." That information could include "information concerning specific numbers of Federal Air Marshals, deployments or missions, and the methods involved in such operations.”

Federal law generally provides whistleblower protections to an employee who discloses information revealing “any violation of any law, rule, or regulation,” or “a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.” 5 U. S. C. §2302(b)(8)(A). An exception exists, however, for disclosures that are “specifically prohibited by law.”

So, the question for the Court was whether MacLean's disclosure was prohibited by law.  The Court held (7-2) that the statute's use of "specifically prohibited by law" meant statutory law, rather than regulations.  The Court reasoned that Congress had used "law, rule or regulation" throughout the whistleblower law, but limited the disclosure exception only to "law."

 

Court of Appeal: Employer's Fitness for Duty Examination Was Justified to Evaluate Workplace Threat

Professor John Kao engaged in a series of confrontations with other academics at University of San Francisco over time.  His co-workers became afraid of him.   He angrily responded to innocuous questions, and became enraged at colleagues over seemingly benign interactions.

So, the University began investigating.  It retained some specialists in workplace violence and threat assessment.  The experts recommended that Professor Kao be examined by a professional, who would render a "fitness for duty" opinion.  The University explained to Kao that he had to submit to the fitness for duty, or be placed on a leave of absence and excluded from the premises.  The University explained in detail the requirements of the FFD exam, including strict limitations on the expert evaluator's dissemination of information about Kao's condition.

Kao's lawyer got involved, and objected to the FFD.  As a result, the University placed Kao on a leave.   There were further meetings and exchanges with Kao's counsel, the faculty's union representative, and the University, to no avail.  The University then agreed to arbitration - under which the University would be bound, but Kao would not (!).  But Kao objected and would not agree to any ADR and would not submit to the exam.  Kao's attorney wanted to have a "clear the air meeting," at which Kao would assure the University he meant no harm.   The University ultimately terminated Kao's employment, about a year after all the problems started.

Kao sued for disability discrimination and defamation, among other things. A jury rejected Kao's claims and he appealed.

Kao argued at trial that the FFD was a medical examination.  Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, a medical examination of an employee is permissible if "job-related and consistent with business necessity."  And Kao argued that the FFD could not be job-related or necessary without the University's first engaging in the "interactive process" that is part of the "reasonable accommodation" process.

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. First, the court noted that the FFD is not an accommodation, and the interactive process relates to the accommodation process.   Second, the court noted that Kao was required to initiate the interactive process, not the University:

Unless a disability is obvious, it is the employee’s burden to initiate the interactive process. (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 62, fn. 22; 2 Wilcox, Cal. Employment Law (2013) § 41.51[3][b], p. 41-278.) Kao cannot plausibly claim it should have been obvious to USF that he was disabled because he never admitted any disability in the workplace. When a disability is not obvious, the employee must submit “reasonable medical documentation confirm[ing] [its] existence.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11069, subd. (d)(2).) Kao did nothing of the sort. He provided no information to USF after learning of the university’s concerns other than documents at the October 2008 meeting with Philpott, which were aimed at showing that those concerns were illusory.

The court concluded that no interactive process was necessary.  For those of you wondering what "job-related and consistent with business necessity means," the court quoted from the jury instruction:

The jury was instructed in accordance with Government Code section 12940, subdivision (f): “ ‘John Kao claims that the university wrongfully required a medical and psychological examination (fitness-for-duty or FFD). [¶] . . . The University of San Francisco asserts that the medical or psychological examination (fitness-for-duty or FFD) request was lawful because it was necessary to the university’s business. To succeed, the university must prove both of the following: 1, that the purpose of the FFD was to operate its business safely and efficiently; and 2, that the FFD would substantially accomplish this business purpose. [¶] . . . If the university proves that the FFD is necessary to the university’s business, then the FFD is lawful unless John Kao proves both of the following: 1, that there was an alternative to the FFD that would have accomplished the university’s business purpose equally well; and 2, that the alternative would have had less adverse impact on John Kao.’ ”

The Court also rejected Kao's claim that the University fired him for not releasing his medical records in violation of California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.  The Court approved of the instruction to the jury that the University avoided liability if the jury found that the University fired Kao for refusing a lawful fitness for duty exam.

The Court upheld the trial court's granting of "non-suit" on Kao's defamation claim.  The claim was based on HR's sharing of a letter detailing Kao's conduct in connection with the FFD examination request.  The Court agreed that the "common interest" privilege applied and there was not evidence of the "malice" required to defeat the privilege.

Finally, the Court ruled that the University was entitled to put on evidence of available employment to Kao, even outside the context of a tenured University professor job.  That is important to the argument regarding mitigation of damages.   The Court of Appeal said it was up to the jury to decide if the comparable replacement employment was sufficiently similar.

This case is Kao v. University of San Francisco and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Request for Accommodation Not Protected Activity Supporting FEHA Retaliation Claim and Much More

The Legislature passed a paid, organ donation leave provision a couple of years ago (Labor Code Sections 1508-13), which became effective January 1, 2011.  (The court calls it the Donation Protection Act or DPA) Upon hire in September 2010, Scott Rope told his new employer, Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. that he would need time off in February 2011 to donate a kidney to his sister.   When he found out about the new paid leave law, he asked for a longer leave under the new statute.

But Auto-Chlor fired Rope on December 30, 2010, just two days before the effective date of the new law, for poor performance.  Rope sued on a variety of theories.

The court did not allow Rope to sue based on the Labor Code provision, as it did not apply to his employment.  Statutes do not operate retroactively unless the legislature specifies that they do.  This law did not so specify.   But that's not why I posted.

Retaliation for Requesting Accommodation

Although Rope's DPA lawsuit was cut short, he also claimed he suffered retaliation for requesting an accommodation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Putting aside that the request was not for his own disability (he had none), the court addressed whether a retaliation claim will lie when the employee alleges retaliation based on requesting an accommodation under FEHA.  The court held it could not.  First the court defined what type of conduct FEHA retaliation claims may be based on:

Rope alleged he suffered retaliation for engaging in the FEHA ―protected activities of requesting leave for his sister‘s disability/medical condition....The question here is whether Rope‘s request for paid leave as an accommodation qualifies as a ―protected activity within the meaning of section 12940, subdivision (h). ...

Protected conduct under section 12940, subdivision (h) may take many forms. The statute ―makes it an unlawful employment practice [f]or any employer . . . to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.(Yanowitz, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 1042.)  ...

FEHA‘s implementing regulations help clarify what constitutes protected activity. They state: ―(a)(1) Opposition to practices prohibited by [FEHA] includes, . . . : [¶] (A) Seeking the advice of the Department [Department of Fair Employment and Housing] or Commission [Fair Employment and Housing Commission], . . . ; [¶] (B) Assisting or advising any person in seeking the advice of the Department or Commission, . . . ; [¶] (C) Opposing employment practices which an individual reasonably believes to exist and believes to be a violation of the Act; [¶] (D) Participating in an activity which is perceived by the employer or other covered entity as opposition to discrimination, whether or not so intended by the individual expressing the opposition; or [¶] (E) Contacting, communicating with or participating in the proceeding of a local human rights or civil rights agency regarding employment discrimination on a basis enumerated in the Act. [¶] (2) Assistance with or participation in the proceedings of the Commission or Department includes, but is not limited to: [¶] (A) Contacting, communicating with or participating in the proceedings of the Department or Commission due to a good faith belief that the Act has been violated; or [¶] (B) Involvement as a potential witness which an employer or other covered entity perceives as participation in an activity of the Department or the Commission.‖ (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7287.8, subd. (a).)

And here is the conclusion:

we find no support in the regulations or case law for the proposition that a mere request—or even repeated requests—for an accommodation, without more, constitutes a protected activity sufficient to support a claim for retaliation in violation of FEHA. On the contrary, case law and FEHA‘s implementing regulations are uniformly premised on the principle that the nature of activities protected by subdivision (h) demonstrate some degree of opposition to or protest of the employer‘s conduct or practices based on the employee‘s reasonable belief that the employer‘s action or practice is unlawful....)

So, no retaliation claims based on a requested accommodation. 

Discrimination Based on Association

Rope himself did not have a disability. But he claimed he was "associated" with his sister, who did. The Court addressed (maybe for the first time under FEHA) a claim of discrimination against an "association" with a person who has a disability.  The court relied on a federal case out of the Seventh Circuit, quoting from the opinion:

Three types of situation are, we believe, within the intended scope of the rarely litigated . . . association section. We‘ll call them "expense," "disability by association," and "distraction." They can be illustrated as follows: an employee is fired (or suffers some other adverse personnel action) because (1) (expense) his spouse has a disability that is costly to the employer because the spouse is covered by the company‘s health plan; (2a) (disability by association) the employee‘s homosexual companion is infected with HIV and the employer fears the employee may also have become infected, through sexual contact with the companion; (2b) (another example of disability by association) one of the employee‘s blood relatives has a disabling ailment that has a genetic component and the employee is likely to develop the disability as well (maybe the relative is an identical twin); (3) ('distraction‘) the employee is somewhat inattentive at work because his spouse or child has a disability that requires his attention, yet not so inattentive that to perform to his employer‘s satisfaction he would need an accommodation, perhaps by being allowed to work shorter hours.

After discussing these categories, the court found that Rope could proceed on his association claim, and the derivative common law claim for wrongful termination:

In our view, Rope has pleaded minimally sufficient facts to state a prima facie ―expense‖ association claim under FEHA The SAC alleges that: From October through December 2010, Rope informed his superiors at Auto-Chlor that he intended to donate a kidney to his sister and that he intended to take a leave of absence to make the organ donation in February 2011; in or about November 2010, Rope informed his superiors about the DPA and requested 30 days paid leave under the DPA, beginning in February 2011; after January 1, 2011, Rope‘s leave under the DPA would cause Auto-Chlor to incur certain expense; and Auto-Chlor terminated Rope‘s employment on the pretext of poor performance on December 30, 2010, two days before the DPA took effect. The reasonable inference is that Auto-Chlor acted preemptively to avoid an expense stemming from Rope‘s association with his physically disabled sister.

This case is Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. and the opinion is here.

American Medical Association Creates Millions of New "Individuals With Disabilities"

At its June 18, 2013 annual meeting, the American Medical Association decided a new "policy":

Obesity as a Disease 

Today, the AMA adopted policy that recognizes obesity as a disease requiring a range of medical interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention.
“Recognizing obesity as a disease will help change the way the medical community tackles this complex issue that affects approximately one in three Americans,” said AMA board member Patrice Harris, M.D. “The AMA is committed to improving health outcomes and is working to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, which are often linked to obesity.

The link is here.

Although the effect of this "policy" will have on employment law is unclear, the move could significantly increase ADA / disability discrimination and impose huge new reasonable accommodation obligations on employers. Why? Courts in the past generally have found that obesity in and of itself is not a covered "disability," but its effects (like high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, heart disease) could be.  (We wrote about this some time ago here.)  If obesity itself is not a disability, the employer would not have a duty to accommodate an obese worker merely because the employee desired adjustments to the work area, for example. It should be noted, though, that some courts more recently have begun to recognize that significantly overweight people might have disabilities or at least be "regarded" as disabled.  The ADA Amendments Act's looser definition of "disability" is making it easier for courts to hold that an employee with nearly any impairment has a disability.

Anyway, if the AMA's recent policy results in more protection for the overweight as "disabled," without a showing of medical complications, then there could be a significant expansion of the duty to accommodate. Employers may have to take into account the obese in office space planning, ergonomics, etc.  What about physical job requirements?  And what of employers who do not hire the obese, or who require / encourage "wellness" plans for the heavyset?  Obese applicants, too, may be able to claim they were not selected due to their disability without any showing that the employer was aware of a latent disability.  

Of course "obesity" is a medical term and does not apply to all overweight people.  And it's too early to know what the AMA's policy statement will mean. But it's worth keeping an eye on this issue and planning for the future.

Catching Up - Friday Pot Pourri

Here are a few of the cases I should have mentioned, but missed:

In Lui v. City and County of San Francisco (opinion here), a police officer suffered a serious heart attack. He had a number of physical ailments and sought a job that did not involve the physical requirements of a police officer.  Under  a new directive, San Francisco police officers, even those assigned to administrative duties, had to perform certain functions. Upholding the trial court, the court of appeal decided that the officer could not succeed on claims for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, or failure to engage in the interactive process.  The officer could not perform several essential job functions. Although this case arises in the special context of police officers, the court's analysis of what is essential is important.

***

The Ninth Circuit held that Jennifer Westendorf did not make out a case of sexual harassment sufficient to get by summary judgment (!)  The comments and incidents she described, even though sexual in nature, and  though some were pretty darn risque I tell ya, were not severe or pervasive enough.  However, the court did allow the retaliation to go forward. The case is Westendorf v. West Coast Contractors (opinion here).

****

The Court of Appeal decided that Bingham McCutchen's arbitration agreement was unenforceable.  Interestingly, the arbitration agreement had a Massachusetts choice of law clause.  Unlike in most employment law-related cases, the court enforced the choice of law clause, over Bingham's objection. Why?   Glad you asked: Mass. law precluded agreements to arbitrate discrimination claims unless they were specifically addressed in detail in the arbitration agreement.  Too bad a non-compete was not involved. The court probably would not have recited how much California law loves choice of law clauses.  Anyway, the Court decided that the Massachusetts court rulings were not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act and, therefore, the arbitration agreement was unenforceable. Be careful of choice of law clauses, they may well be enforced!  This case is Harris v. Bingham McCutchen et al. and the opinion is here.

Ninth Circuit Holds Retail Store Manager Unable to Work Is Not Qualified Individual

The Ninth Circuit held that a retail store manager who was unable to perform her essential job functions  was not a qualified individual, despite her request for a part time schedule and a five month leave.

Montblanc properly asserts that Lawler cannot competently perform her job duties as manager. Here, the essential duties of a boutique manager are undisputed. Lawler testified that a manager is responsible for hiring, training, and supervising sales staff; overseeing and developing customer relations; administrating stocking and inventory; cleaning; creating store displays; and preparing
sales reports. She further stated that the duties of a manager can only be performed in the store.

But but but... she was "on disability" and leave is a type of accommodation.  What happened?

The key is that Lawler did not establish that she ever would be able to perform her essential job duties again.

Lawler, however, offers no factual support showing she can perform any job duty of a boutique manager, regardless of the accommodation. Rather, she admitted that her disability makes it impossible for her to fulfill the duties of her position and that she has been unemployed since October 2009, has not applied for any positions, has made no effort to secure employment, and has exhausted her disability benefits.
Lawler contends that Montblanc “cannot argue that it met its burden of showing that Plaintiff was not able to do the job with or without reasonable accommodation” because it denied her requests for reduced hours and a five-month leave of absence. This argument ignores the holding in Green that “the plaintiff employee bears the burden of proving he or she was able to do the job, with or without reasonable accommodation.”

The court also rejected a harassment claim and a retaliation claim.  But the headline is the rejection of the disability discrimination case.

The opinion in Lawler v. Montblanc is here.

Ninth Circuit Holds Regular Attendance Is Essential Job Function for a Nurse

Some welcome, common sense ADA analysis.  When a job must be performed at the job site, and the employee is not a fungible member of a group of similar workers who can each replace each other, the employer can require regular attendance as a job requirement.

Monika Samper was a neo natal nurse at a Providence Hospital.  She claimed to have Fibromyalgia, which resulted in poor attendance. She violated the attendance policy and was fired.  She wanted essentially a waiver from the policy.

No sale.

It is a “rather common-sense idea . . . that if one is not able to be at work, one cannot be a qualified individual.” Waggoner v. Olin Corp., 169 F.3d 481, 482 (7th Cir. 1999). Both before and since the passage of the ADA, a majority of circuits have endorsed the proposition that in those jobs where performance requires attendance at the job, irregular attendance compromises essential job functions. Attendance may be necessary for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, it is required simply because the employee must work as “part of a team.” Hypes v. First Commerce Corp., 134 F.3d 721, 727 (5th Cir. 1998). Other jobs require face-to-face interaction with clients and other employees. Nowak v. St. Rita High Sch., 142 F.3d 999 (7th Cir. 1998) (teacher); Nesser v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 442 (8th Cir. 1998) (airline customer service agent); Tyndall v. Nat’l Educ. Ctrs., 31 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 1994) (teacher). Yet other jobs require the employee to work with items and equipment that are on site. EEOC v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 253 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (dockworker); Jovanovic v. In-Sink-Erator, 201 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 2000) (tool and die maker); Waggoner, 169 F.3d 481 (production worker); Corder v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 162 F.3d 924 (7th Cir. 1998) (telephone customer support); Halperin v. Abacus Tech. Corp., 128 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 1997) (computer consultant); Rogers v. Int’l Marine Terminals, Inc., 87 F.3d 755 (5th Cir. 1996) (mechanic); Jackson v.Veterans Admin., 22 F.3d 277 (11th Cir. 1994) (housekeeping aide); Carr v. Reno, 23 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (coding clerk under the Rehabilitation Act); Law v. U.S. Postal Serv., 852 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (mail handler under the Rehabilitation Act).

The common-sense notion that on-site regular attendance is an essential job function could hardly be more illustrative than in the context of a neo-natal nurse. This at-risk patient population cries out for constant vigilance, team coordination and continuity. As a NICU nurse, Samper’s job unites the trinity of requirements that make regular on-site presence necessary for regular performance: teamwork, faceto-face interaction with patients and their families, and working with medical equipment face interaction with patients and their families, and working with medical equipment. Samper herself admits that her absences sometimes affected “teamwork and cause[d] a hardship for [her] coworkers who must cover for [her].” Similarly, once at work, Samper’s tasks required her to “lift babies, push cribs and isolettes.” More critically, she had to “get up at a moment’s notice to answer alarms [and] . . . [o]ften . . . run to codes.”
****
Samper’s performance is predicated on her attendance; reliable, dependable performance requires reliable and dependable attendance. An employer need not provide accommodations that compromise performance quality—to require a hospital to do so could, quite literally, be fatal.

Zing. The case is Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr. and the opinion is here.

Ninth Circuit: No Duty to Accommodate Unqualified Applicant With Disability

Trish Johnson was a special education teacher. She was required to maintain a teacher certification. To do so, she had to satisfy certain continuing education requirements, including having 3 hours of college credit over a five year period.  Johnson failed to complete the college credit on time and told her bosses she would lose her certification. Her school district could have petitioned the state for an exemption, but declined to do so. Johnson lost her certification and was fired.
She sued under the ADA, claiming the school district had to apply for and obtain the exemption as a form of accommodation of her depression and other mental impairments.
Agreeing with the district court, the Ninth Circuit upheld summary judgment. The court held that a plaintiff under the ADA must establish she is a "qualified individual with a disability" or no accommodation is due.
The court noted EEOC regulations provide "that a 'qualified individual with a disability' is one 'who satisfies the requisite skills, experience, education and other job related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires, and who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m) (emphasis added).
So, the court reasoned, Johnson was required to hold the "requisite" job related requirements of the job without accommodation. She did not maintain the requisite continuing education requirements and, therefore, lost her certification.
So, by way of example given in the opinion, an employer hiring a CPA can require the CPA to be licensed and need not provide "accommodation" that helps the applicant obtain the license (like tutoring).  A law firm does not have to help a law clerk pass the bar, etc.
The case is Johnson v. Bd. of Trustees and the opinion is here.

Ninth Circuit: Triable Issue on Accommodation of Hearing Impaired

The EEOC brought suit against UPS Supply Chain Solutions for failing to accommodate a hearing impaired employee. The employee, Mauricio Centeno, was deaf since birth and American Sign Language was his primary language.

He was able to do his job in accounting without a sign language interpreter. But he asked for an interpreter at company meetings. The employer offered post-meeting recaps in writing and contemporaneous notes during the meetings. He also wanted an interpreter's help with respect to certain job training and to understand the company's sexual harassment policy.

The district court granted UPS' motion for summary judgment because, it found, UPS had engaged in an interactive process with Centeno and had provided accommodations that were sufficient to enable Centeno to understand what transpired at meetings, etc.

But the court of appeals reversed. The appellate court held it was a genuine dispute of fact regarding whether the accommodations were effective. The court decided that agendas, contemporaneous notes, and summaries in English were not necessarily sufficient substitutes for a sign language interpreter. The court was especially concerned because Centeno was not proficient at written English, but the court also said it would be a triable issue even if Centeno were fluent in English.

Similarly, the court held that UPS may have failed to accommodate Centeno by delaying Excel training. Centeno claimed he could not read the online training program and required an interpreter. UPS ultimately provided him one, but two years later.

Centeno also complained he did not understand the company's anti-harassment policy and training materials because he was not given a sign language interpreter to read them. The court held that Centeno's professed lack of comprehension was sufficient to put UPS on notice that an accommodation was necessary.

This case raises the bar for employers who employ hearing impaired employees. Even when the hearing impaired can perform essential job functions without interpreters, they may be necessary so the employee can enjoy the "benefits and privileges" of employment.

The opinion is EEOC v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Employee Must Initiate Interactive Process

Tanya Milan worked for the city of Holtville's water treatment plant. After a work-related injury, she began a leave of absence. During the leave, her workers' compensation doctor decided she would not be able to perform her duties. She never requested an accommodation or contacted her employer to state her intention to return to work. Instead, she accepted retraining benefits from the city's workers' compensation administrator and began taking courses for a new career.

The trial court awarded damages. The court felt that when the employee's doctor opined she was unable to do her job, that triggered the city's obligation to accommodate her.

However, on appeal, the court reversed. The court noted that the claim for failure to participate in an interactive process requires the employee to initiate the process:

Section 12940, subdivision (n), requires that an employer "engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition." (Italics added.)

* * *

Importantly, by its terms section 12940 subdivision (n) requires that the employee initiate the process. (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp., supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 62, fn. 22.) On the other hand, "no magic words are necessary, and the obligation arises once the employer becomes aware of the need to consider an accommodation. Each party must participate in good faith, undertake reasonable efforts to communicate its concerns, and make available to the other information which is available, or more accessible, to one party. Liability hinges on the objective circumstances surrounding the parties' breakdown in communication, and responsibility for the breakdown lies with the party who fails to participate in good faith."

Here is the money quote:

In short, where, as here, an employer has not received any communication from an employee over a lengthy period of time, and after the employee has been given notice of the employer's determination the employee is not fit, an employer is not required by section 12940, subdivision (n), to initiate any discussion of accommodations. Imposition of such a duty under those circumstances would contradict the express terms of the statute which requires that the employee initiate the interactive process.

Although this case does not require it, from a preventive standpoint, it is important to document attempts to check in with employees on long term leave. Employers should also ensure it has policies requiring employees to communicate periodically regarding their status and intentions. By doing so, that bolsters the argument that the employee's failure to communicate demonstrates a lack of intention to engage in an interactive process or request accommodation.

The case is Milan v. City of Holtville and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: "Reasonable Accommodation" Must Be Perfectly Executed Every Time

It is one thing to grant a reasonable accommodation. It is another thing to ensure that it is implemented perfectly, every time. Hard cases make bad law. This is a combination of a sympathetic plaintiff, a big company, and a one-time event resulting in a huge verdict.

A.M. was a cashier at an Albertson's in Marin County. After receiving treatment for cancer, she needed to drink copious water. Albertson's let her have water at her station, even though it was against policy. Naturally, A.M. had to use the bathroom more frequently because of the water she was drinking. Albertson's said that she could call her supervisor and they would cover her.

So, Albertson's had granted A.M. extra breaks as an accommodation, and had implemented a system for A.M. to obtain them. The system was working, with A.M. receiving extra breaks by calling her supervisor. On one occasion, the system did not work because the supervisor was the only person who could relieve her and he was unloading a truck. A.M. had an accident at her cashier station. She went home and did not return to work for Albertson's.

According to the court of appeal, that single failure of the supervisor sufficed to be a "denial" of reasonable accommodation. The court upheld a jury verdict of $200K for that one incident. Add the plaintiff's and defense attorney's fees and sooner or later we're talking about a lot of money.

By the same argument, then, if an employee's wrist starts to hurt a few months after the employer installs ergonomic equipment, that alone is the denial of an accommodation? If a diabetic experiences low blood sugar one day, does that mean the employer's accommodation of permitting food at the work area is actionable?

If an accommodation becomes ineffective, the employer is required to engage in the interactive process to come up with a better accommodation, and grant the new accommodation. It is unreasonable to assume that an employee with a disability has a right to a perfect work environment and a guaranteed flawless accommodation, every day. The world does not work that way for anyone - with or without a disability. The issue is: did Albertson's grant her request for accommodation? Yes. Was it effective? Except for the one occasion, apparently so. Was there evidence the company intended to mistreat A.M. or only pretended to accommodate her? No. Could A.M. have filed a workers' compensation claim if she were injured by a work-related condition? Yeah, which was her real remedy here.

Again, A.M. was very sympathetic and what happened that day was truly unfortunate. But absent proof of intentional discrimination, the result of this case is that FEHA is not providing a remedy for a wrong; it is elevating individuals with disabilities above all others and exposing employers to potential liability for isolated failures.

The case is A.M. v. Albertson's and the opinion is here.

My 0.02.