In Neisendorf v. Levi Strauss & Co., (2006 WL 2475046, Cal.App. 1 Dist., Aug. 29, 2006), a California Court of Appeal addressed an employee’s claim that her employer violated the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA") when it terminated her after she returned from a 14-week medical leave. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the CFRA claim. It also held the employee was not entitled to certain bonus payments because her employment was terminated before she became eligible for the payments.
Facts
In November 2002 Plaintiff, Barbara Neisendorf ("Neisendorf"), an at-will employee of Levi Strauss & Co. ("Levi Strauss"), was terminated the day that she returned to work from a 14-week medical leave. Neisendorf began the leave in August 2002 immediately after Levi Strauss informed her it would not agree to her demand for a severance package, a demand made by Neisendorf after she received a negative midyear job performance review. The nature of the leave was for a psychiatric condition. At the end of the leave, Neisendorf’s psychiatrist released her to work if Levi Strauss provided certain accommodations. Levi Strauss agreed to provide the accommodations but also demanded that Neisendorf correct the job performance deficiencies outlined in her review. Neisendorf was reinstated to her job at the same level of pay and benefits. On the day of her return to work, however, she met with her supervisor and refused to acknowledge she would correct her performance problems. Levi Strauss then terminated her.
Neisendorf sued. She asserted claims of age, gender and disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and interference with her substantive rights under CFRA. She also claimed entitlement to certain “bonus payments” which Levi Strauss had refused to pay.
The trial court dismissed Neisendorf’s age and gender claims, and the jury determined that Neisendorf was not “disabled” as defined by FEHA. The court also found Levi Strauss had fulfilled all of its CFRA obligations to Neisendorf, and held Neisendorf was not entitled to bonus payments because she was discharged before she was eligible for them. Neisendorf appealed the latter two rulings.
Decision
The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court on both holdings. While CFRA entitles an employee to 12 weeks of unpaid medical leave per 12-month period, the law does not require an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation to a non-disabled employee returning from CFRA leave. It was undisputed that Neisendorf was not disabled, and, although Levi Strauss had agreed to provide certain accommodations, it also had consistently made clear that Neisendorf’s continued employment was contingent on her correcting specified performance deficiencies. Levi Strauss therefore had fulfilled its substantive obligations under CFRA and was entitled to terminate Neisendorf when she refused to acknowledge that deficiencies existed or that she would work to correct them, the Court held.
The fact that an employee takes CFRA leave does not give him or her any greater protection than any other employee against termination for unsatisfactory job performance or gross misconduct. It was undisputed that Levi Strauss had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharging Neisendorf which had nothing to do with her CFRA leave. As a result, Neisendorf could not state a claim against Levi Strauss for its alleged refusal to honor her right to reinstatement under CFRA, the Court of Appeal said.
The Court also agreed that Neisendorf was not entitled to certain payments under two bonus payment plans offered by Levi Strauss. Both plans clearly articulated that an employee became ineligible to receive the payments upon termination from employment, and it was undisputed that neither plan had a payout date until several months after Neisendorf was terminated. The Court rejected Neisendorf’s argument that the bonus payments were equivalent to wages she had earned, and that forfeiture of the payments was therefore illegal under the state Labor Code.
Legal Alert 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.