The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, recently held that California’s Family Rights Act (CFRA) does not insulate an employee on a family leave of absence from termination due to a company-wide reduction in force. In Tomlinson v. Qualcomm, Inc., 2002 WL 568131, the Court upheld a trial court’s grant of nonsuit on Lona Tomlinson’s claim that she was entitled to reinstatement after her return from family leave.
Ms. Tomlinson’s employment was terminated as a result of a company-wide reduction in force affecting more than 300 employees. To determine which employees would be laid off, Qualcomm rated each employee’s skill, performance and importance to the company. Ms. Tomlinson was selected for the lay off because she received the lowest possible rating. When Ms. Tomlinson was notified of her termination, she was on a leave of absence pursuant to the terms of Qualcomm’s CFRA personnel policy.
Ms. Tomlinson filed suit against Qualcomm, alleging that the company had breached her written employment contract, discriminated against her on the basis of her pregnancy, terminated her in retaliation for taking family leave, and utilized unfair business practices. After Tomlinson presented her evidence to a jury, Qualcomm moved for nonsuit. The trial court granted Qualcomm’s motion on all claims except the discrimination claim, which the jury decided in favor of Qualcomm.
The Court noted that Section 12945.2(a) of CFRA provides that an employee on family leave is guaranteed a same or comparable position upon return to work. However, this guarantee has been clarified by California Code of Regulations, title 2, § 7297.2, which provides that an employee on family leave is entitled to no greater benefits than if the employee had been employed continuously throughout the leave period. The Court concluded that, under § 7297.2, Qualcomm’s grant of family leave did not confer upon Ms. Tomlinson any rights greater than if she had not taken leave.
The Court rejected Ms. Tomlinson’s argument that § 7297.2 is invalid. Rather, the Court held that § 7297.2 is neither inconsistent with, nor creates an exception to, CFRA’s guarantee of continued employment, and does not exceed statutory authority, as there is no legislative history indicating the legislature considered adding, and then omitting, the “no greater rights” provision to CFRA.
The Court also rejected Ms. Tomlinson’s alternative argument that Qualcomm’s personnel policies and handbook, coupled with its guarantee that she could return to her job or its equivalent following her family leave, amounted to a departure from her status as an at-will employee. The Court recognized that, although employment in California is presumed to be at-will, parties can make an agreement, either express or implied, to depart from an employee’s at-will status. However, Ms. Tomlinson’s employment agreement expressly stated that her employment was at-will. Accordingly, the Court concluded that any implied subsequent agreement with Qualcomm to depart from her status as an at-will employee could not overcome the express at-will term in the employment agreement. Moreover, the Court concluded that, even if Ms. Tomlinson could prove that Qualcomm’s actions modified her at-will status, the company’s Termination of Employment policy specifically provided that an employee could be terminated due to lack of work or reorganization within the company.