Issue
In Green v. State of California (5 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,389, Cal.App. 4 Dist., Aug. 24, 2005), the California Court of Appeal considered several issues in a disability discrimination case under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Court (1) clarified the burden of proof by holding that an employer has the burden of proving an employee cannot perform his duties even with reasonable accommodation; (2) held there was sufficient evidence of discrimination; (3) concluded that a previous decision by a workers’ compensation judge did not bar the employee from pursuing his FEHA claim; and (4) held that the trial court could not independently reduce the jury’s verdict.
Facts
While Employee, Dwight Green, was working for Employer, State of California Institute of Men, he contracted hepatitis C. His treatment included taking injections of Interferon, which had side effects including fatigue, aches, and stress or agitation. His physician recommended light duty during the periods of the injections – the period occurred twice and lasted for one year each time. During this time, Employer accommodated Employee, in part, by assigning him to positions that did not require heavy labor. However, when Employee returned to work after having been off for a back injury and having completed the second year of Interferon injections, Employer refused to allow Employee to return to his position, concluding from old medical reports and Employee’s complaint of fatigue on one day that Employee was incapable of performing his duties. Employee was placed on disability retirement.
Employee sued, alleging Employer violated the FEHA by discriminating against him and failing to accommodate his disability. The jury returned a sizeable verdict in favor of Employee, and Employer asked for a new trial. Although the trial court denied a new trial, it independently, without a request from Employer, reduced the amount of the non-economic damages awarded by the jury. Both Employer and Employee appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
The first issue facing the Court of Appeal concerned the burden of proof: Did Employee have the burden of proving that he has the capacity to perform his essential job functions, as an element of his prima facie case, or did Employer have to prove that Employee cannot perform his duties even with reasonable accommodation? The Court placed the burden squarely on Employer, distinguishing FEHA cases from cases filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It reasoned that, unlike the ADA, the FEHA prohibits disability discrimination against “any person” without reference to employment qualifications. Therefore, a disabled employee has one less hurdle to cross – initially, he just has to show that he was discriminated against because of his disability; he does not have to show that he is a qualified individual. If the employer cannot establish employee’s inability to perform, with reasonable accommodation, or any other defense, the employee will be entitled to relief. If the employer proves a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, the burden will shift back to the employee to show the reason given is merely a pretext.
Using this burden of proof analysis, the Court next concluded there was sufficient evidence of discrimination. Employee presented substantial evidence that his disability or work restrictions were motivating factors for Employer’s actions. Moreover, Employer failed to show that Employee was unable to perform the essential functions of his job – Employee was no longer under light duty restrictions, and he could nevertheless perform the essential functions of his job with reasonable accommodations.
Next, the Court concluded that Employee could pursue his discrimination claim despite a workers’ compensation judge’s determination that Employer did not discriminate against Employee as prohibited by Labor Code Section 132a. The Court concluded Employee could pursue the claim because the issues involved in the two proceedings were not identical – the FEHA and the Labor Code define “disability” and “discrimination” differently. Importantly, the Labor Code, unlike the FEHA, does not require an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s disability.
Lastly, the Court concluded that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to independently reconsider the jury’s determination of non-economic damages without a request to do so from Employer.