California Family Rights Act

California court revives disability bias claim, rejects punitives

June 15 (Westlaw Journals) - An employee fired for failing to return to work from a medical leave had his disability bias claims reinstated by a California appeals court.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal said a jury must decide whether the company should have accommodated his health needs and kept him on the job.

Although the court found questions of fact on Roland Gonzalez’s disability discrimination and accommodation claims, it affirmed summary judgment on his bid for punitive damages.

According to the opinion, defendant ATI Systems International hired Gonzalez in April 1990 to work in its corporate tax department. His doctor’s note said Gonzalez would be out of work for “at least six months.”

Although his supervisor approved the leave, by May 2008, Gonzalez had used up the 12 weeks of leave provided under ATI’s policy and guaranteed by both the California Family Rights Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945.1, and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601.

In June 2008 ATI notified Gonzalez that all of his leave had expired and fired him when he failed to return to his job. The company “invited” him to reapply for a job when his “circumstances” allowed.

After receiving a right-to-sue notice from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, Gonzalez sued ATI in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

He alleged disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process under the Fair Employment and Housing Act Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940. He said the interactive process in his case should have included an inquiry about his ability to take on part-time work.

ATI countered that it would have been a hardship to leave Gonzalez’s full-time specialized position open indefinitely and that there was no one else in his department who could do his work.

The trial court granted ATI’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the company had provided a legitimate business reason for its decision to replace Gonzalez.

Gonzalez appealed, and the panel reversed on all the substantive claims.

The appeals court noted first that undisputed direct evidence established that ATI fired Gonzalez for “conduct resulting from his disability.”

“When an employer discharges an employee for conduct that is caused by the employee’s disability, such as absenteeism, then the employer has terminated the employee because of his or her disability,” the panel explained.

Does the California Family RIghts Act (CFRA) require employers to ...

“During an unpaid FMLA/CFRA leave, the Department will pay the entire premiums of an employee’s health, dental, and vision benefits. When the employee returns to work, an accounts receivable will be established to recover the employee’s portion of the premiums.” http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/ohr/Supervisor/DGSFMLAPolicyProcedures.pdf

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to grant a request for family care and medical leave by an employee if the employer employs less than 50 employees within 75 miles of the worksite where that employee is employed.”

The CFRA is almost identical to the FMLA. The only big difference is additional weeks off for pregnant women. This website explains that, and confirms that companies with less than 50 employees within 75 miles of the office are not subject to the CFRA.

http://www.lapregnancy.com/scoops_a-d/california_family_rights_act_pregnancy.htm

If the CFRA did apply, the employer would have to pay health, dental, and vision benefits.

California family rights act

West's Federal practice digest 4th

Annual Institute on Employment Law

West's federal supplement

Women and Equality, A California Review of Women's Equity Issues in Civil Rights, Education and the Workplace