Articles Posted in Employment Discrimination

In a recent California Court of Appeals case decided in February 2023, the court’s decision illuminates the burden that employees bear, specifically employees who are bringing disability discrimination claims against their employers. In this case, a registered nurse’s employment was terminated by the County after the County determined that she was unable to perform the essential functions of her job after the nurse sought to return to her position under new restrictions after an absence. The County also decided that an accommodation was not possible. The nurse filed a lawsuit against the county on various claims of disability discrimination, in addition to a retaliation claim.

A closer look at the details of the case reveals that the plaintiff, a registered nurse, suffered an injury while pushing a patient on a gurney. The nurse did not immediately report the work incident, hoping her injury would improve, but once she realized that it was not improving, she sought medical treatment. After her healthcare provider indicated that she should be placed in a sit-down job that required no standing, the County employer accommodated the work restrictions. Before the lawsuit, multiple incidents occurred, including the County determining that the nurse could not perform her essential job functions. Ultimately, the nurse decided to file a lawsuit against the County.

The lower trial court ruled in favor of the County, finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of discrimination, and the plaintiff filed an appeal. The appellate court ultimately agreed with the lower court’s ruling, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence. In the opinion, the appellate court lays out the elements required to establish disability discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. Under the Act, a plaintiff is required to present evidence that he or she (1) suffers from a disability, (2) is a qualified individual, and (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability.

In a recent opinion decided by the Napa County Superior Court, the court decided against the plaintiff in an employment lawsuit, bringing to light the importance of meeting filing deadlines and understanding and following the legal rules put in place regarding certain filing requirements. In this case, an employee of the California Department of State Hospitals was disciplined by her employer with a temporary salary reduction and was later terminated. The employee unsuccessfully challenged the salary reduction and termination in administrative proceedings before the State Personnel Board but failed to seek judicial review of those adjudications. She ultimately sued the Department under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act for retaliation, race-based harassment, and failure to prevent harassment. She also amended her complaint to assert a claim under the California Whistleblower Protection Act.

The plaintiff was a Black woman who was employed by the Department. She filed the lawsuit in April 2019 and filed her first amended complaint in March 2021. The amended complaint, amongst multiple other incidents, alleges multiple incidents of racist terms by coworkers and alleges multiple instances of disciplinary actions that the plaintiff believed were in retaliation for reporting her coworker’s racist comments. The incidents span from 2015 to 2018. The Plaintiff appealed to the State Personnel Board, and after two-day evidentiary hearings, the Board sided against the plaintiff.

Ultimately, the higher court that reviewed the Plaintiff’s case found against her for multiple reasons. One reason provided is that two events that she discussed in her complaint occurred much earlier and were outside of the filing deadline. The court also considered whether certain claims she made were barred because they were not distinguishable from earlier claims made. Additionally, the court found that her whistleblower claim was barred because she failed to exhaust administrative remedies. In other words, because the plaintiff did not seek judicial review of the administrative decisions that the State Personnel Board made by timely filing a required petition, she was no longer able to bring the claims that she brought. Certain legal rules require that all judicial remedies are exhausted first. This means that the legal rules prevent plaintiffs from bringing claims that should have been brought in a previous suit involving the same parties and also bars litigating the same issues that were argued and decided in the first suit.

In a recent case, the Third District Court of Appeals Division in California ruled on an appeal involving a former Chief Financial Officer (CFO) who lodged wrongful termination allegations against Ampla Health, a nonprofit healthcare provider serving low-income families. The plaintiff sued her former employer for race and gender discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination after Ampla Health eliminated her CFO position and designated her responsibilities to other employees. Ampla Health filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. The trial court granted the motion in full, and the plaintiff appealed. In its recent opinion, the Appeals Division affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Facts of the Case

Soon after the plaintiff was hired as CFO of Ampla Health in 2016, the CEO received complaints about the plaintiff’s attitude toward staff and expressed concern that she disclosed confidential and inaccurate information to the board. Ampla Health claimed the plaintiff repeatedly left work without requesting time off, resulting in a threat to dock her pay. After a poor annual review, she did not receive a raise. However, every other executive received a raise, despite negative findings in their performance audits. Finally, after she reported Ampla Health’s various financial woes to the board, the nonprofit eliminated her position to reduce costs. The CEO further cited poor performance and interpersonal skills as reasons for her termination.

On the other hand, the plaintiff alleged discrimination and retaliation. First, she lodged complaints of racial and gender bias against other high-level staff members. Second, she claimed CEO allowed non-Black employees to bypass attendance policies. She also noted that she was terminated while on paid family leave. She brought causes of action for race and gender discrimination, a hostile work environment, whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and retaliation under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), among other claims.

Continue Reading ›

Earlier this month, an employee appealed the lower court’s decision in favor of his employer in a wrongful termination case. When the case was before the lower court, the plaintiff unsuccessfully argued that he should succeed because his employer engaged in disability discrimination. On appeal, the higher court agreed with the lower court, ruling again in favor of the company that had employed the plaintiff.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the plaintiff began working as an assembler in 1989 for a fairly large company. In 2015, the plaintiff took an extended medical leave because he was having problems with his liver. These medical issues eventually led to a liver transplant in October 2016.

The plaintiff had been unable to work for approximately 13 months. In late October 2016, the plaintiff’s employer sent him a letter informing him that his unpaid medical leave had expired many months ago, and that he had one week to return to work before the employer would assume he had resigned. The plaintiff failed to return to work, and the company terminated his employment one week later.

In November 2018, the plaintiff filed a claim for disability discrimination. He alleged that the employer failed to provide reasonable accommodation given his medical condition.

Continue Reading ›

Recently, a federal district court in California denied a plaintiff’s appeal in a racial discrimination case. The plaintiff worked for a community medical center as a microbiologist, and according to the medical center, he was fired in 2018 for violating the center’s privacy policies. The lower court denied the plaintiff’s racial discrimination claim, and the plaintiff asked the higher court to re-examine the decision. On appeal, the district court agreed with the original decision, affirming the court’s denial of the claim.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the employer in this case reported that the defendant was fired because he violated the center’s well-established privacy and confidentiality policies. In a deposition, the plaintiff admitted that he copied various medical records, removed the copied records from the workplace, and copied the records onto his personal computer at home. He also emailed documents that contained protected health information to his personal email account. This violation of the employer’s policy led to his firing in 2018.

The plaintiff told a different story. According to the defendant, he faced racial discrimination while in the workplace. At one point, for example, the plaintiff’s supervisor told him, “You stubborn Indian, do your job.” The plaintiff felt as if he was treated differently due to his race, and he felt that his race was ultimately a factor in his termination.

Continue Reading ›

Employment-related lawsuits in California require plaintiffs to comply with many procedural requirements to pursue a claim successfully. If an employee is being mistreated in the workplace, several potential claims against the employer could be pursued. Although an employee may have two or more valid claims against their former employer, each claim needs to be pled and argued in accordance with the procedural requirements for each cause of action. The California Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of ten employment-related claims filed by a former employee of the defendant.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff began working for the defendant, a medical supply company, in December of 2013. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, during 2015 and early 2016, she began to experience harassment and discrimination from her supervisor. The plaintiff claimed that the supervisor, who was a woman, was discriminating against the plaintiff, also a woman, because of her gender. In May of 2016, the plaintiff reached out to the defendant’s human resources department to report that she was suffering health problems as a result of the mistreatment by her supervisor. Before the plaintiff’s complaint was addressed by human resources, she was terminated from her job, ostensibly because of her failure to accurately keep records as required by her job description.

The plaintiff filed a 10-count cause of action against the defendant after her termination, alleging gender discrimination, harassment, retaliation, unlawful termination, and other employment-related claims. The defendant responded that the plaintiff was an at-will employee and was terminated for her failure to abide by the record-keeping requirements of the job. The trial court addressed the plaintiff’s arguments in turn and summarily rejected them all as unsupported by the evidence. The plaintiff appealed the ruling to the state court of appeals, where the lower judgment was upheld. The appellate court ruled that most of the plaintiff’s arguments were waived on appeal because the plaintiff’s appellate brief was not sufficient to allow the court to consider the substantive merit of the claims.

The procedures for successfully pursuing an employment law claim in California can be archaic and confusing. If an employee has been treated illegally by their employer but fails to properly follow the procedure to pursue a claim, they most likely will be left without any relief, even if the facts surrounding the employee’s claim were clearly on the employee’s side. The California Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of an employment discrimination claim because the case was not filed until after the statutory deadline for making such a claim.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case is a woman who worked as a special education assistant for the Los Angeles Unified School District (The defendant) for 15 years between 2000 and 2015. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff was injured on the job in 2015, made a workers’ compensation claim, and took medical leave to address her injuries. In 2017, the plaintiff was cleared by her doctor to return to work with modified duties; however, the defendant determined that she was unable to perform her prior job and offered her a lower-paying position with lighter duties, which the plaintiff refused.

The plaintiff claimed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), alleging that she was discriminated against for her disability and retaliated against for making a workers’ compensation claim. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to make reasonable accommodations for her to return to her original position after she partially recovered from her injuries. On January 23, 2018, the California DFEH issued her a “right to sue” letter, which instructed her that she could file her claims in state court within one year of the date the letter was issued. Three hundred sixty-six days later, one day after the expiration of the right to sue, the plaintiff filed a claim in state court.

Employment discrimination is illegal under state and federal law. Once an employee makes it known that they are experiencing any type of disability, public and private employers are required by law to provide reasonable accommodation for the employee. Employees are entitled to any accommodation that would not produce undue hardship to the employer’s operation. Disabled employees who are refused reasonable accommodation for their disability and forced to retire may be entitled to take legal action against their former employer. These are known as “failure to accommodate” claims. The California Court of Appeals recently rejected a woman’s claim against the City of Sacramento that alleged her retirement was the result of the city’s refusal to reasonably accommodate her disability.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff in the recently decided case is a woman who was employed by the City of Sacramento for approximately 20 years. Around 2014, the plaintiff became disabled and took several leaves of absence from her job to have treatment on her ankle. The plaintiff was allotted six months of medical leave, after which she would need to return to work in order to keep priority for her position. After having surgery on her ankle, the plaintiff was not cleared to return to work by the doctor within the six-month medical leave period. Because she wanted to maintain her insurance coverage, the plaintiff decided to retire from her job.

After her retirement, the plaintiff sued the city for disability discrimination, claiming that the city did not make reasonable accommodations for her to continue her job working with her disability. The city responded that they offered the plaintiff 6 months of medical leave as an accommodation for her disability. Furthermore, the city responded that the plaintiff could have requested modified work duties instead of seeking retirement. A jury heard the plaintiff’s claim and sided with the defendant, finding that while the plaintiff could have continued her job with reasonable accommodation, the defendant did not refuse to offer such accommodation, and was not liable for disability discrimination as a result.

Addressing issues with employment law in California can be a confusing and daunting task. Municipal, state and federal laws can have a bearing on a potential case, and civil, administrative, and even criminal laws and procedures may dictate what relief a plaintiff is entitled to. Usually, employees who have suffered unfair treatment or discrimination in the workplace are required to seek an administrative remedy before pursuing a civil claim in the state or federal court. A plaintiff’s failure to timely and adequately pursue an administrative remedy could prevent them from obtaining relief through a civil suit. The California Court of Appeals recently addressed an appeal filed by a woman whose workplace discrimination lawsuit had been dismissed for failing to properly seek an administrative remedy before filing the civil lawsuit.

In the recently decided case, the plaintiff is a woman who had been employed by the defendant, the City of San Francisco, for over 15 years when she developed a vision problem. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff’s vision problem resulted from a disability that developed in response to excessive computer use through the plaintiff’s career with the city. Upon the advice of her medical providers, the plaintiff requested to be reassigned to a job with limited computer use as a reasonable accommodation for her disability. After several months without a new work assignment, the plaintiff retired on July 30, 2016.

After leaving her post, the plaintiff sought administrative relief for her discrimination claim through the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Although she started the complaint process in February of 2016, the DFEH did not prepare a complaint for her to sign and submit until July 2, 2017. After completing the regulatory process through the DFEH, the plaintiff filed a civil claim in state court against the defendant, alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate her disability.