In this appeal of a lower-court judgment, a receptionist for a large corporation alleged that her termination following an extended medical leave violated her civil rights and unfairly discriminated against her because of her disability. The appellate court upheld the trial court ruling and found the receptionist’s employment discrimination claim was not covered by the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. (Williams v. Genentech, Inc., 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5589, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3848, Cal.App. 1 Dist., May 9, 2006)
Facts
Rochelle Y. Williams, a receptionist at Genentech, Inc., was criticized by her supervisors for allegedly mishandling an incident involving company security. She suffered stress and exacerbation of an existing medical condition following the criticism and took a seven-month medical leave. Her position was ultimately filled during her leave. When she returned, she was unable to obtain another position at the company and was terminated.
In October 1990, Williams began to cry uncontrollably and to hyperventilate following a meeting in which she was criticized for mishandling a security situation at the company. She was transported to a hospital emergency room where she was diagnosed as suffering an exacerbation of asthma. She began a medical leave that day. Numerous medical examinations and reports to the company ensued, and in April of 2001, her physician diagnosed her as suffering from anxiety and depression and as “totally incapacitated.” She was released to return to work without restrictions on May 16, 2001.
The company’s family and medical leave policy provided for six months of paid medical leave. Employees who qualified for leave under the California Family Rights Act (Gov. Code, section 12945.2) would be placed in the same or equivalent position upon their return to work if their leave did not exceed 12 weeks in a one-year period. If the leave extended beyond 12 weeks, the company could not guarantee that a position would be available. On Jan. 29, 2001, company officials decided Williams’ position should be filled by a regular, full-time employee. After Williams was released to return to work the following May, she had 60 days under company policy to find another suitable position, and assistance would be provided to help her find a position within the company. During that period, there were no vacant receptionist positions, and it was determined she did not qualify for other positions. She was terminated on July 16, 2001.
Williams filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing on July 9, 2002, alleging race and disability discrimination, and received a right to sue letter. An amended complaint expanding the original allegations was filed in Superior Court two years later, on July 12, 2004. The trial court ruled in favor of the employer on three grounds: (1) that she failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies; (2) Genentech could not be liable for filling her position because she could not have returned to that position within a “reasonable time”; and (3) the company had “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for filling her position, which [Williams] failed to establish were a pretext for disability discrimination.” Williams appealed.
Decision
In a complex, 30-page ruling, the 1st District California Court of Appeal noted that “a finite leave of absence” is a “reasonable accommodation” under the state Fair Employment and Housing Act, when it is “likely” that at the end of the leave the employee will be able to perform required employment duties. (Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc., supra, 74 Cal. App.4th at p. 226.) But, the Court added, Williams presented no evidence that her employer was aware the medical leave was not an “effective accommodation” for her anxiety and depression, as she contended. The Court noted that her seven-month leave was extended several times by her physician, who found her “totally incapacitated.”
The Court also disagreed with Williams’ contention that the lower court erred in concluding that Civil Code Section 51, the Unruh Act, does not apply to employment discrimination claims. The court ruled that employment discrimination claims are excluded from the Unruh Act because such claims are “specifically addressed within a different statutory scheme.”
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.