In Doe v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a newly published disability discrimination, harassment and reasonable accommodation case from California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, employers were given more guidance on what to do when getting a request for continued medical leave of absence and other accommodations (e.g., quiet room to complete work because of migraine headaches) when they have only vague and generalized doctor’s notes that do not describe the nature and extent of an employee’s limitation to determinate what, if any, accommodations would be reasonable. In Doe v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the court of appeal granted the employer’s summary judgment motion, dismissing the employee’s disability-based discrimination and harassment claims and the employee’s claim that the employer failed to engage in the interactive process and provide a reasonable accommodation.
The court of appeal analyzed an employer’s obligations under Government Code section 12940(m), which requires employers to engage in the interactive process with an employee who requests a reasonable accommodation in connection with a purported disability. Specifically, the court looked at whether the employer had any duty to engage in the interactive process and provide a reasonable accommodation when there is a lack of information on the plaintiff’s doctor’s note. The court explained that that the plaintiff’s doctor’s note made only “vague and generalized” references to an “underlying medical condition,” a “chronic work related medical condition,” a “physical disability,” and “migraine headaches.” The court held that this “vague and generalized” information was not sufficient to put the employer on notice that the plaintiff suffered from a disability covered by FEHA or to inform the employer of the extent of the limitations his disability caused. The court also found that the plaintiff himself provided no information describing the extent of his disabilities – that is, what kind of work limitations his headaches, asthma and dyslexia caused. The most information that the plaintiff’s doctor provided to the employer about the plaintiff’s limitations was a statement that the plaintiff is “easily distracted and, under stress, can become disorganized.” The court explained that an employee’s stress-induced distraction at work is true of many people, whether or not they suffer from a learning disability.
In affirming summary judgment of the employee’s disability discrimination claim, the court of appeal found that a supevisor’s (1) criticizing the plaintiff’s work during an “interrogation-like meeting,” (2) ordering a wellness check on the plaintiff when he was out sick, (3) suspecting the plaintiff of bringing a cell phone into work (in violation of prison rules), and (4) assigning the plaintiff the primary crisis person on the same day as his union meeting was not an “adverse employment action” sufficient to create a triable of disability discrimination. Even if such alleged actions were true, they were “relatively minor conduct that while potentiality angering or upsetting to [plaintiff], did not threaten to materially affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of his job.” The court of appeal noted that none of these actions resulted in any sort of formal or informal discipline or demotion in job responsibilities, which is required of an adverse employment action to establish a discrimination claim.
The court of appeal also summarily adjudicated the plaintiff’s disability harassment claim on the same set of facts. The court found that the supervisor’s criticism of the plaintiff’s work during an “uncomfortable meeting,” suspecting the plaintiff of bringing a cell phone into work in violation of the prison rules, ordering a wellness check on the plaintiff when he was out sick, “piling work on” the plaintiff when he was supposed to attend a union conference, and withholding permission to leave early to make a doctor’s appointment was not legally sufficient to constitute unlawful harassment because (1) there was no evidence such conduct was based on plaintiff’s purported disability and (2) such acts were personnel decisions that could not constitute harassment in any event, as a matter of law. The court of appeal explained the legal differences between discrimination – which focuses on the “exercise of official actions on behalf of the employer” – from harassment – which focuses on “bias that is expressed or communicated through interpersonal relationship in the workplace,” which the court called “the social environment of the workplace.” Although these purported acts might constitute alleged discrimination, not harassment, the court noted that because they did not rise to the level of an adverse action, thus, the discrimination claim failed (as explained above).
Questions
If you have any questions regarding this Legal Alert, please contact the following attorneys from our office, or the attorney with whom you typically consult.
Bruce Scheidt
bscheidt@kmtg.com | 916.321.4502