Category: Disability Discrimination

Posted on

Protecting Pregnant Workers: A Close Look at the Laws and the Realities on Ground

Pregnancy discrimination accommodations.

Imagine landing a new job, attending the first training day, and then receiving the distressing news that “there might be something wrong with my daughter’s heart.” You are looking to seek immediate medical attention for your unborn child, but instead of understanding or empathy from your new employer, your job offer is rescinded. This is not fiction; it is a story that unfortunately unfolded for a sales consultant at Victra’s Dayton, Nevada, store.

Victra, a nationwide retailer of Verizon mobile devices, has been sued for alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Before we delve into the details of the lawsuit, it’s pivotal to understand the laws that protect pregnant workers.

The Americans with Disabilities Act passed in 1990, prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual because of a pregnancy-related impairment that an employer regards as a disability. It paved the way for heightened awareness and protection for people with disabilities, including those related to pregnancy, ensuring their right to equal employment opportunities.

More recently, on June 27, 2023, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) went into effect, providing additional protections for pregnant workers. The PWFA requires employers to provide pregnant workers with equal opportunities and flexibility as they do for other applicants or employees.

These laws aim to put a stop to discrimination against pregnant employees or applicants who may need immediate and emergency care related to pregnancy. Yet, the Victra case reminds us that these unfair practices still exist. The plaintiff in this lawsuit was denied the right to leave training for urgent prenatal care and lost her job as a result.

The sad reality is that pregnant workers should never have to choose between keeping their jobs or seeking urgent prenatal care to protect the health of both parent and child. Losing the ability to earn income during such a critical time is challenging and disheartening. Thankfully, entities like EEOC are there to defend the rights of pregnant applicants and employees against employment discrimination.

If you have experienced pregnancy-related discrimination, remember that you are not alone. There are laws designed to protect you and legal professionals available to help you navigate these daunting situations. An experienced employment law attorney can guide you through the legal processes, ensuring your rights are protected and justice is served. It’s crucial not to let discriminatory behavior go unchallenged. Stand up against it because each voice contributes to a louder call for equality, fairness, and justice in the workplace.

Posted on

In the Face of Disability Discrimination: A FedEx Employee’s Tough Road

Refusing reasonable accommodations is disability discrimination and it is illegal. Contact the ADA Lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP.

In an era where inclusivity should be a given, it is disheartening to witness drastic violations of employees’ rights, particularly those who are differently-abled. Employees employed by FedEx, a globally recognized shipping and logistics company, found themselves unemployed due to the corporation’s stringent 100 %-healed policy.

The story that stands out in this murky tide of exploitation is the tale of a Minneapolis-based FedEx driver. The unnamed woman who motivated the launch of a lawsuit against her employer had been subjected to unfair treatment due to medical restrictions. Her job as a ramp transport driver involved driving a tractor-trailer and operating mechanical equipment to load and unload freight. An injury had limited her lifting abilities, invoking FedEx’s 100 %-healed policy. The policy forced the ramp transport driver into a 90-day temporary light-duty assignment. When her medical restrictions remained after 90 days, she was placed on unpaid medical leave. FedEx ultimately terminated her employment due to her inability to work without restrictions – a harsh reality for someone who could have done her job with reasonable accommodations.

According to Gregory Gochanour, of the EEOC’s Chicago District Office, “100%-healed policies, like the one FedEx has, cost qualified workers their livelihood without giving them individual consideration.” He further added, “Under the ADA, employers have an obligation to explore reasonable accommodations and not to screen out qualified individuals with disabilities who can do their jobs.”

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The act prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities, mandates employers to provide reasonable accommodations enabling employees to perform their jobs, and bars employers from policies that screen out qualified individuals with disabilities.

To FedEx employees and others stuck in similar situations, know that you are not alone and your struggles are valid. The “100 %-healed” policy that cost you your employment directly violates the ADA, a federal law enacted to provide you with rightful protection and accommodation. Don’t let corporations like FedEx undermine your rights.

Fellow workers, you are invited to step up, speak out, and report such ADA violations. Please reach out to an experienced Disability Discrimination Attorney who can help you navigate this legal terrain and ensure that your rights are upheld. Stand tall against discrimination. Remember, no one can strip you of your rightful place in your workspace, let alone your inherent dignity.

Posted on

Disability Discrimination at a 25-Year High

Reasonable accommodations required by ADA, Disability discrimination lawyers Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Over 29,000 charges of disability discrimination were reported last year alone.

As we delve into the pressing issue of employment disability discrimination, recent data reveals a startling trend: discrimination incidents have surged to a 25-year high. This spike raises critical questions about the systemic barriers faced by individuals with disabilities in the workplace. Despite advancements in legislation aimed at promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities, the gap between policy intentions and workplace realities appears to be widening. This investigation seeks to unpack the underlying factors contributing to this alarming increase by reviewing three employers in different industries facing lawsuits for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), “No qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” This foundational principle underscores the Act’s commitment to ensuring that individuals with disabilities are afforded the same opportunities as their non-disabled counterparts. As the lawsuits unfold, examining how these employers allegedly neglected their responsibilities under this provision will be crucial to understanding the broader implications of their actions.

One of the cases involves the Ned NoMad hotel and members’ club in Manhattan. The hotel allegedly refused to accommodate an employee with a knee condition that limited her standing or walking to no more than 30 minutes at a time. Despite providing a medical note, the employee was not allowed to use a stool while performing clerical work at the host stand and was eventually terminated.

In another case, Smith’s Detection, Inc., a manufacturer of threat detection equipment, is being sued for demoting a disabled employee who requested personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect her hearing from manufacturing equipment noise. Instead of providing the PPE, the employer demoted the employee from her team lead position, resulting in reduced pay, and assigned her to a quieter area.

The third case involves Holsum bakery in La Porte, Indiana, which allegedly refused to modify a policy to allow an employee to use a walker, as required by her physician. The bakery’s failure to accommodate the employee made it impossible for her to access her workstation, restroom, and break room, resulting in her termination.

These alleged actions by the companies violate the ADA, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.

As these cases unfold, they not only shed light on the specific actions of these employers but also highlight a pressing need for accountability in the workplace regarding disability rights. Employees with disabilities face unique challenges, and it is essential that their rights are protected through appropriate legal channels. Therefore, the role of an experienced disability discrimination attorney becomes paramount. Such professionals not only bring expertise in navigating the complexities of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) but also ensure that the voices of affected employees are heard and valued. Engaging legal representation can be crucial in pursuing justice and fostering a more inclusive and compliant work environment for all.

Posted on

$2,125,000 Paid by Staffing Agencies in Discrimination Lawsuits

Disability discrimination laws protect blind employees accommodations for service dogs. Helmer Friedman LLP vigorously protects the rights of all employees.

The Cost of Discrimination: Analyzing Recent Legal Settlements in Staffing Agencies

Two recent high-profile settlements have spotlighted workplace discrimination, reminding staffing agencies of their legal obligations and encouraging employees to take a stand against unlawful behaviors.

Robert Canino, regional attorney for the EEOC Dallas District Office said, “Unfortunately, when a group of job seekers with certain disabilities is relegated to ‘For Future Consideration’ status, opportunities can be lost indefinitely. We are encouraged to see NTI’s earnest interest in committing to a more proactive effort, including working closely with other organizations that specialize in increasing opportunities for persons who simply need accommodations already known to be effective for blindness and low vision.”

In the first case, the National Telecommuting Institute (NTI), a Massachusetts staffing support company, has agreed to a $1.25 million settlement in a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination. NTI was accused of failing to accommodate and hire blind and low-vision job applicants, specifically those who used assistive technology such as screen readers. The ADA prohibits employment decisions based on an individual’s disability or need for reasonable accommodation.

In the suit, it was charged that NTI did not pursue placement or referrals for these individuals and also denied disability-related accommodations during pre-employment application processes. As part of the settlement agreement, NTI is committed to providing internal training on ADA rights, revising its policies regarding reasonable accommodations, and appointing an internal ADA coordinator and external monitor.

“The customer is not always right and, as EEOC’s guidance for employment agencies makes clear, staffing agencies violate the law when they comply with a client’s sex-based preference, or a preference based on any other prohibited characteristic,” said Nancy Sienko, director of the EEOC’s San Francisco District, which includes Washington. “Hiring and referrals should be based on a worker’s merits, not stereotypes.”

The second recent settlement involves SmartTalent LLC, a Washington-based staffing agency. The company will pay $875,000 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit. The allegations involved SmartTalent complying with clients’ requests for male workers. This has resulted in a pattern of discrimination against women in hiring and job assignments since 2015, which infringes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. SmartTalent will draft and implement anti-discrimination policies as part of the settlement, train staff on Title VII requirements, and actively monitor compliance.

These cases underscore the importance of equal employment opportunity rights and shed light on the severe implications of violating these rights. If you believe you have been discriminated against due to your gender or disability, it’s essential to consult an experienced employment lawyer to understand and protect your rights. Discrimination has no place in the employment sector, and together, we can strive for fairer, more inclusive workplaces.

Posted on

Stories of Resilience: Overcoming Wrongful Termination After a Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Constitutional rights lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

Facing a breast cancer diagnosis is already an overwhelming experience, but the thought of losing your job because of it can add a significant emotional and financial burden. Many survivors worry about how their employers will react and whether they’ll be able to maintain their livelihoods. This blog aims to shed light on this challenging topic by discussing your rights, sharing personal stories, and providing actionable advice for those dealing with similar situations.

Understanding Your Rights

When diagnosed with breast cancer, it’s vital to understand your legal rights as an employee. Laws such as the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and various state disability laws are in place to protect you.

FMLA provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year for serious health conditions, which includes cancer. This enables you to take necessary time off for treatment or recovery without the fear of losing your job.

ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, which can encompass cancer. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations, such as modified work schedules or time for medical appointments, unless doing so would cause significant hardship to the business.

Despite these protections, there have been instances where employers have cited false reasons for termination following an employee’s breast cancer diagnosis. Understanding your rights is crucial in safeguarding your employment and taking action if discrimination occurs.

Navigating the Conversation

Discussing a breast cancer diagnosis with your employer can be daunting. However, open communication is essential for ensuring you receive the necessary support and accommodations.

Before initiating the conversation, prepare yourself by understanding what accommodations you may need, such as flexible hours or remote work options. Document everything—emails, conversations, and any agreements reached.

During the conversation, emphasize your commitment to your role and desire to continue contributing to the team. Be clear and concise about your needs, and work collaboratively to find a solution that benefits both parties.

It’s important to remain informed about your company’s policies regarding medical leave and accommodations. By approaching the discussion professionally and proactively, you’re more likely to receive the support you need.

Financial Resources

The financial strain of breast cancer treatment can be overwhelming, especially if your employment is impacted. Fortunately, several resources are available to help alleviate this burden.

Disability Benefits can offer financial support if you’re unable to work due to your diagnosis. Both short-term and long-term options may be available through your employer or government programs like Social Security Disability Insurance.

Insurance Coverage should be reviewed to ensure you’re receiving all benefits to which you’re entitled. Some insurance plans offer coverage for specific treatments, support services, or even transportation to medical appointments.

Additionally, community resources such as nonprofit organizations and cancer support groups can provide financial assistance, counseling, and other essential services during this challenging time.

Personal Stories

Real-life experiences of breast cancer survivors highlight the challenges and triumphs faced when dealing with job loss due to a diagnosis.

Kara Jorud was a store manager at Michaels when she was fired after being diagnosed with breast cancer. Despite the company’s claims of policy violations, a jury found that her rights under FMLA, the Florida Civil Rights Act, and ADA were violated. Michaels was ordered to pay more than $8 million in damages for wrongful termination.

Imelda Tamayo faced a similar situation when she was terminated from Oakland Children’s Hospital after requesting extended medical leave for recovery. The hospital eventually settled for $300,000 and revised its policies to better accommodate employees with medical conditions.

Megan Rizzo-Canny shared her fight against wrongful termination during breast cancer treatment. After being laid off, she pursued legal action and was able to secure disability benefits and maintain her health insurance, proving that standing up for one’s rights can lead to positive outcomes.

Linda O’Brien, another survivor, won millions in a discrimination suit after being wrongfully fired. Her story is a powerful reminder of the importance of advocating for oneself and the impact of legal protections.

Conclusion

While losing a job after a breast cancer diagnosis is a difficult and emotional experience, understanding your rights and seeking the necessary support can make a significant difference. Remember that you’re not alone—many have successfully navigated this challenging path.

If you face discrimination or wrongful termination, consider contacting an experienced employment lawyer to protect your rights. Connecting with support groups and tapping into available resources can also provide invaluable assistance.

Ultimately, your health and well-being should remain a top priority. By staying informed and advocating for yourself, you can move forward with strength and resilience, knowing that brighter days lie ahead.

Posted on

Empowerment Through Knowledge: Navigating Disability Rights and Employment Law

Disability laws protect employees from being fired for requesting reasonable accommodations while battling illness. Disability discrimination lawyers Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Breast cancer patient fired for requesting temporary accommodation during treatment

Waging a war against a major illness is one of the most challenging experiences anyone can face. The emotional, physical, and mental toll it takes can be overwhelming. At the heart of this struggle lies an issue that makes this battle even more daunting: the fear of losing one’s livelihood. Fortunately, laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are in place to ensure that women battling major illnesses have one less thing to worry about – job security.

The ADA unequivocally protects employees by prohibiting discrimination based on disability. It ensures women struggling with significant health conditions, like breast cancer, have the right to request reasonable accommodations that would allow them to continue performing their job efficiently and effectively. Fear of demotion, termination, or discrimination should never add to the immense stress these women face while battling for their lives.

A recent case underscores the importance of this protection. A surgical sales coordinator at Mia Aesthetics, battling breast cancer, requested telework as a reasonable accommodation while undergoing chemotherapy treatments. Telework would not have hindered the coordination role, and the employee provided medical documentation in support. However, the company denied this request and instead offered a part-time front desk role, resulting in decreased earnings and increased person-to-person contact. When the employee did not accept this role, her employment was terminated.

Mia Aesthetic’s actions were deemed a clear violation of the ADA. The law states that firing an employee because of a disability is discriminatory, which was the case here. The ADA also requires employers to perform an individualized assessment to determine if an employee can execute their roles with suitable accommodations.

The justice system stepped in to protect the employee’s rights, filing a lawsuit against Mia Aesthetics. This case is a potent reminder that no woman should have to worry about losing her job while she’s fighting for her life.

In light of the challenges faced by employees dealing with discrimination linked to their health conditions, it is crucial for those affected to know their rights and seek appropriate support. Anyone who has experienced such discrimination is strongly encouraged to contact an employment law attorney. These legal professionals can provide invaluable guidance, helping victims understand the complexities of their situation and navigate the legal landscape to secure the protections afforded to them under the law. Taking action not only empowers individuals to advocate for themselves but also contributes to a broader movement against discrimination in the workplace.

Posted on

Navigating the ADA: A Beacon of Protection Against Disability Discrimination

Disability discrimination laws protect blind employees accommodations for service dogs. Helmer Friedman LLP vigorously protects the rights of all employees.

In a recent string of landmark settlements, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has proven, once again, its indispensable role in the fight against workplace discrimination. Notably, these cases underscore the reality that despite being over three decades old, the ADA remains a critical shield for employees against unfair treatment based on disabilities.

Unpacking Recent Settlements

Among the headline-grabbing decisions, three cases stand out for their implications and the sizeable financial repercussions for the offending employers:

  • Tech Mahindra (Americas), Inc. found itself at the wrong end of a legal battle when the Western District of New York ruled against it, resulting in a $255,000 settlement (EEOC v. Tech Mahindra (Americas), Inc., 6:23-cv-06397). This case serves as a stark reminder that disability discrimination can not only tarnish a company’s reputation but also lead to significant financial losses.
     
  • Pete’s Car Smart, in Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00092-Z-BR, was ordered to pay $145,000 following allegations of ADA violations. This litigation spotlights the importance of equitable treatment in all aspects of employment, from hiring to day-to-day job functions.
     
  • Perhaps most notably, McLane/Eastern, Inc. d/b/a McLane Northeast faced a whopping $1,675,000 settlement (EEOC v. McLane/Eastern, Inc. d/b/a McLane Northeast, Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-01628-BKS-ML). This settlement underscores the extensive reach of the ADA and serves as a cautionary tale to employers across industries about the severe consequences of non-compliance.
     

Understanding ADA Protections

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is more than just a statute; it’s a declaration of fairness and equality. The ADA sets forth clear guidelines that protect individuals with disabilities from discriminatory practices, including but not limited to job application procedures, hiring, termination, compensation, and advancement.

For qualified individuals, this means an equitable chance at not just securing employment but prospering within their chosen field without fear of discrimination due to their disabilities. The legislation mandates reasonable accommodations, ensuring that the work environment adapts to the needs of the employee, not vice versa.

The Implications for Employers and Employees

These recent settlements tell a dual narrative of caution and empowerment. For employers, they represent a clarion call to revisit and, if necessary, overhaul internal policies, ensuring they align with ADA standards. Ignorance, intentional or otherwise, leads to costly legal entanglements with profound financial and reputational damage.

For employees, these cases reinforce the ADA’s role as a vigilant protector of rights. They offer a semblance of reassurance that injustices do not go unchecked and that the legal system can and will hold employers accountable for discrimination.

Moving Forward: An Advocacy for Compliance and Awareness

The ADA’s clear stance on discrimination forms the bedrock upon which employees can stand firm, demanding fair treatment and equal opportunities. Moreover, these court cases should not just be viewed through the lens of legal precedents; they are also critical learning opportunities for both employers and employees.

Employers must view ADA compliance not as a checklist but as a fundamental aspect of organizational culture that champions diversity and inclusion. For employees, awareness of these protections equips them with the knowledge to navigate and challenge discriminatory practices confidently.

In the ongoing journey toward workplace equality, the ADA remains a powerful force. However, it’s not just about adherence to the law; it’s about cultivating an environment where every employee, regardless of disability, can thrive. As these recent settlements highlight, when it comes to protecting the rights and dignity of employees with disabilities, the ADA is not just a shield; it’s a beacon guiding the way toward a more inclusive and equitable workplace.

Posted on

Anxiety Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Citizens Bank

Federal laws protect employees from discrimination, employer retaliation.

Anxiety Disability Discrimination Lawsuit against Citizens Bank Settles for $100,000

Citizens Bank has been accused of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to accommodate a call center employee who developed an anxiety disorder. The employee requested reassignment to a position that did not require him to field calls with aggravated customers over the phone. Despite having hundreds of nearby job openings, Citizens Bank refused to reassign the employee or discuss alternative accommodations until he returned to his job at the call center, the same position his disability prevented him from performing. As a result, the employee was forced to resign.

“We’ve seen a huge uptick in the number of potential or prospective clients calling us since the pandemic began with regard to either mental health issues in general or anxiety and PTSD.” Andrew H. Friedman – in an Law360 article entitled, No Letup in Sight as Anxiety-Related EEOC Charges Mount.

The EEOC filed a lawsuit (EEOC v. Citizens Bank, N.A., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00362) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC alleges that Citizens Bank violated the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against employees with disabilities and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations, including reassignment.

According to the EEOC, 2600 workers lodged anxiety-related disability discrimination charges in 2021. Citizens Bank has agreed to a 30-month consent decree that includes monetary relief and other measures to support employees with disabilities. The bank will offer noncompetitive reassignment as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities. The bank will also revise its reasonable accommodation policy, train its employees on noncompetitive reassignment as a reasonable accommodation, provide specialized training to its human resources department, and appoint an internal monitor to ensure compliance with the decree.

The EEOC is committed to enforcing the ADA and ensuring that qualified employees with disabilities can return to work. Citizens Bank will implement company-wide policy changes and pay $100,000 to a former Cranston, Rhode Island, call center employee to resolve the disability discrimination lawsuit.

More information about disability discrimination is available at https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc-disability-related-resources.

Posted on

Papa John’s Pizza Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Settled for $175,000

Disability discrimination laws protect blind employees accommodations for service dogs. Helmer Friedman LLP vigorously protects the rights of all employees.

Federal Agency Charges Pizza Chain Failed to Accommodate and Fired Blind Employee Because of Disability Settled

“Congress passed Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act to remove the barriers to employment faced by workers with disabilities, and for Mr. Barnes, his service dog does just that,” said Darrell Graham, district director of the Atlanta office. “The EEOC will continue its fight to ensure that all employees, regardless of disability status, have an equal opportunity to earn the privileges and benefits of employment.”

Papa John’s Pizza, an international chain of pizza restaurants based in Louisville, Kentucky, has settled a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by agreeing to pay $175,000 and provide other relief. The lawsuit was filed after the company failed to accommodate and fired a blind employee because of his disability.

In early 2020, Michael Barnes, who is legally blind and relies on his service dog for his commute, applied for a job at his local Papa John’s restaurant in Athens, Georgia, after hearing from a friend that the company hired individuals with vision impairments. Barnes was hired but could not start until his accommodation request to bring his service dog was formally granted by Papa John’s. However, the company denied Barnes’s accommodation request and fired him before he worked a single shift.

Such conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). “The ADA prohibits employers from terminating employees because of a disability and denying them equal employment opportunities,” said Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office.

“Not allowing blind and visually impaired people to travel to and from work in the way that affords them confidence and independence is akin to telling sighted workers who rely on the flexibility and independence of driving that they may not travel to work by car,” said Karla Gilbride, the EEOC’s general counsel. “We are glad that Papa John’s has agreed to provide training to its employees and hope that in the future, no other job applicant who uses a service dog will experience the discrimination that Mr. Barnes faced.”

Under the two-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit, Papa John’s will pay $175,000 in monetary damages to Barnes, train its employees on the ADA, review its employment policies, and allow the EEOC to monitor complaints of discrimination or retaliation.

“The EEOC will continue its fight to ensure that all employees, regardless of disability status, have an equal opportunity to earn the privileges and benefits of employment,” said Darrell Graham, district director of the Atlanta office.

“We are glad that Papa John’s has agreed to provide training to its employees and hope that in the future, no other job applicant who uses a service dog will experience the discrimination that Mr. Barnes faced,” said Karla Gilbride, the EEOC’s general counsel.

“The Commission is steadfast in its commitment to making sure all employees have an equal opportunity to earn and enjoy the privileges and benefits of employment, regardless of their disability status,” added Darrell Graham, district director of the EEOC’s Atlanta office.

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.

Posted on

Jury Could Find Termination Substantially Motivated by Disability

Disability Discrimination Lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP have extensive knowledge in this area of law.

Although Employer Had Tentatively Placed Employee RIF List Before Becoming Aware of Her Disability, It Did Not Terminate Her Employment Until After It Was Aware Of Her Disability – A Reasonable Jury Could Find That Employee’s Ultimate Termination Was Substantially Motivated By Her Disability

Lin v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 88 Cal.App.5th 712 (2023)

Suchin I. Lin was employed by Kaiser as an IT Engineer. Lin became disabled as a result of a fall in the workplace which caused her to suffer an injury to her left shoulder. A doctor issued a work status report placing Lin on modified duty with restrictions requiring Lin to use a sling and to limit the use of her left arm. The doctor also indicated that surgery might be necessary. As part of a round of employee layoffs Kaiser planned, at least tentatively, to terminate Lin before Lin became disabled. Following her disability, Kaiser went forward with her layoff. Lin sued for disability discrimination. Kaiser filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was entitled to summary adjudication of Lin’s disability discrimination and retaliation claims because the decision-maker had made the decision to eliminate Lin’s position in a RIF before Lin sustained her disability. Lin opposed the motion arguing that, while her name was selected for the initial RIF list prior to her disability, this “proposed” list was “subject to further review,” as reflected in the list’s gradual reduction from 31 employees to the 17 who were ultimately laid off. She further argued that her ultimate termination was a result of the decision-maker’s reliance on her supervisor’s post-disability assessment of her, particularly a post-disability email to the decision-maker rating her performance much lower than that of her teammates. The trial court granted Kaiser’s motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed. The Court of Appeal held that Kaiser’s plan to terminate Lin before she became disabled, by itself, was (of course) not discrimination against Lin because of her disability. But Kaiser did not complete its layoff plans—or, a reasonable jury could find, make its final determination to terminate Lin—until after Lin had become disabled. The Court of Appeal found that there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Kaiser’s ultimate decision to terminate Lin was motivated, at least in substantial part, by concerns Kaiser had about Lin’s disability. The Court of Appeal found the following facts important in its decision:

  • Before Lin sustained her disability, neither her then-current supervisor nor any prior supervisor had given her a negative performance evaluation.
  • After Lin sustained her disability, her then-current supervisor began giving her negative feedback and a poor performance evaluation.
  • Lin’s then-current supervisor’s criticisms, in large part, revolved around his concerns about her “slow delivery” and her “pace of execution” – concerns that a jury could find stemmed directly from her disability.

Lin’s then-current supervisor agreed to Lin’s request for light-duty work as a form of accommodation for her disability (but he never actually provided her with light-duty work). His agreement to assign Lin lighter tasks supported a reasonable inference that he believed her disability prevented her from handling her usual workload.