Tag: disability

Posted on

Wrongful Termination After Medical Leave: Know Your Rights

Suffering a heart attack is frightening. Laws protect from wrongful termination after serious illnesses.

When Medical Leave Ends in Wrongful Termination

An employee suffers a major health crisis, takes legally protected medical leave, and keeps their employer informed. Yet, upon recovery, they find their job has been terminated. This scenario is not just a hypothetical; it is an unfortunate reality for many workers. In the United States, an estimated 150,000 workers are illegally fired or retaliated against each year for taking family or medical leave. This act, known as wrongful termination, violates federal and state laws designed to protect employees during their most vulnerable times.

Wrongful termination occurs when an employer fires an employee for an illegal reason, such as discrimination or in retaliation for exercising a legal right. Laws such as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provide crucial protections for employees who need time off for serious health conditions. Understanding these rights is the first line of defense against unlawful employment practices. This article will explore what constitutes wrongful termination after medical leave, examine a real-world case, and outline the steps you can take if you believe your rights have been violated.

Understanding Your Right to Medical Leave

Federal law provides a safety net for employees who need to take time off for significant health issues, either their own or a family member’s. The primary law governing this is the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Eligibility and Rights Under the FMLA

The FMLA allows eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons. To be eligible, you must:

  • Work for a covered employer (private-sector employer with 50 or more employees, public agencies, or schools).
  • Have worked for the employer for at least 12 months.
  • Have worked at least 1,250 hours during the 12 months before the start of leave.
  • Work at a location where the employer has at least 50 employees within 75 miles.

Under the FMLA, eligible employees can take up to 12 weeks of leave in 12 months for a serious health condition that prevents them from performing their job. During this leave, your employer is legally obligated to maintain your group health insurance coverage under the same terms as if you had continued to work. Most importantly, upon your return, you must be restored to your original job or an equivalent position with the same pay, benefits, and other terms of employment.

Employer Obligations and Restrictions

Employers cannot interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of any FMLA right. They are also prohibited from retaliating against an employee for taking FMLA leave. This means they cannot fire, demote, or otherwise discipline you simply because you took necessary medical leave. They must hold your job open for you and cannot use your absence as a justification for termination.

What Constitutes Wrongful Termination After Medical Leave?

Wrongful termination after medical leave occurs when an employer fires an employee for reasons that violate the FMLA, ADA, or other applicable state laws. It is not about being fired for a reason you disagree with; it is about being fired for a reason that is legally prohibited.

Examples of unlawful actions include:

  • Direct Retaliation: Firing an employee specifically for taking approved medical leave.
  • Pretextual Termination: Firing an employee for a fabricated reason, such as “poor performance” or “job abandonment,” when the real reason is their medical leave.
  • Disability Discrimination: Terminating an employee due to their underlying medical condition, which may be considered a disability under the ADA. The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, including extended leave, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.
  • Failure to Reinstate: Refusing to return an employee to their original or an equivalent position after their FMLA leave ends.

These actions not only violate federal law but also undermine the very purpose of medical leave protections: to allow employees to address serious health needs without fear of losing their livelihood.

Case Study: Ortiz v. Elevance

The story of Mr. Ortiz unfolds as a heartbreaking example of alleged wrongful termination, illustrating the profound challenges faced by dedicated employees during times of medical crisis. After undergoing emergency open-heart surgery in February 2022, Mr. Ortiz found himself in a difficult situation, requiring an extended medical leave to recover from painful complications.

For nearly 20 years, Mr. Ortiz had been a loyal and exemplary employee at Elevance/Anthem/Blue Cross, advancing to the Senior Underwriter role with an annual salary of approximately $147,000. Throughout his tenure, he meticulously adhered to company protocols, informing his supervisor about his surgery and consistently submitting the necessary medical authorizations to extend his leave, which was officially sanctioned until February 2, 2023.

However, in a troubling turn of events in October 2022, Mr. Ortiz received an alarming email from his supervisor, accusing him of being on “unapproved leave” and threatening termination for “job abandonment” if he did not respond within three days. The letter contained a chilling warning: “you are not eligible for rehire.”

With a sense of despair but determination, Mr. Ortiz promptly reached out to his supervisor, clarifying that his leave was indeed medically authorized and expressing his unwavering desire to return to work once he received the green light from his doctors. “I have not abandoned nor do I plan on abandoning my job,” he stated poignantly in a follow-up email.

Tragically, on October 10, 2022, Mr. Ortiz was abruptly terminated. At a time when he needed support the most, the company, a well-known healthcare giant, seemed to turn its back on him. The lawsuit alleges that this termination was used as a pretext and raises concerns about discrimination, highlighting how a similarly situated white employee was allowed to take over a year of leave without penalty. Additionally, when Mr. Ortiz applied for another position within the company that matched his qualifications, he was rejected—without explanation.

This case poignantly illustrates the struggles employees face as they try to navigate their health needs while standing up for their rights. It underscores the critical importance of protecting individuals and ensuring compassionate treatment, especially during life’s most challenging moments.

What to Do If You Believe You Were Wrongfully Terminated

If you find yourself in a situation similar to Mr. Ortiz’s, it is crucial to act swiftly to protect your rights.

  1. Gather Documentation: Collect all relevant documents, including your employment contract, performance reviews, emails regarding your leave, medical certifications, and your termination letter.
  2. File a Complaint: You can file a complaint with federal or state agencies. For FMLA violations, you can file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD). For disability discrimination, you can file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). There are strict deadlines for filing, so do not delay.
  3. Consult an Employment Attorney: An experienced employment lawyer can assess the details of your case, explain your legal options, and help you navigate the complexities of filing a lawsuit. They can advocate on your behalf to seek remedies such as reinstatement, back pay, and other damages.

How Employers Can Prevent Wrongful Termination Claims

Employers can take proactive steps to ensure compliance and foster a supportive workplace culture.

  • Develop Clear Policies: Create and distribute a clear, FMLA-compliant medical leave policy that outlines employee rights and responsibilities.
  • Train Managers: Ensure all supervisors and HR personnel are thoroughly trained on FMLA, ADA, and state leave laws. Managers must understand that they cannot discipline or retaliate against employees for taking protected leave.
  • Maintain Consistent Practices: Apply leave policies fairly and consistently to all employees to avoid claims of discrimination. Document all communications and decisions related to employee leave requests.

Protecting Your Rights and Livelihood

Losing your job is devastating, but losing it illegally while recovering from a serious medical condition is an injustice no one should face. Federal and state laws were established to prevent this very outcome, ensuring that employees can prioritize their health without sacrificing their financial security.

If you believe your employer has violated your rights by terminating you after a medical leave, it is vital to understand that you are not powerless. By documenting your situation and seeking expert legal guidance, you can hold your employer accountable and fight for the justice you deserve. Do not hesitate to contact an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case and explore your options.

Posted on

Students File Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against UCLA

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

In a significant development concerning accessible education, two students have filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against UCLA and the University of California Board of Regents. Jake Bertellotti, a third-year applied mathematics student, and Taylor Carty, a graduate public health student, are challenging what they allege to be UCLA’s failure to adequately support students with disabilities. This lawsuit highlights the dangers posed by insufficient emergency preparedness for disabled students, raising important questions about UCLA’s commitment to providing an inclusive and safe environment for all its students.

The lawsuit claims that UCLA has not sufficiently addressed the concerns of students with disabilities regarding emergency evacuation protocols, accessible housing, and academic facilities. The plaintiffs argue that this negligence violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and federal and state antidiscrimination and housing laws, placing students with disabilities at risk during emergencies.

One of the major concerns outlined in the lawsuit is UCLA’s inadequate emergency preparedness for students with disabilities. The plaintiffs allege that the university lacks proper evacuation plans, does not provide evacuation chairs in residential buildings, and has not properly trained staff on their use. Bertellotti’s situation became so critical that he left campus during the Los Angeles County fires in January, potentially jeopardizing his academic responsibilities due to fears of inadequate evacuation measures.

The lawsuit also points to issues regarding the accessibility of academic facilities, emphasizing the lack of accessible entrances and the obstacles that students face on pathways. Furthermore, there are significant gaps in transportation accessibility through BruinAccess, as students requiring specialized transit must reserve rides 24 hours in advance, a requirement the plaintiffs argue violates the ADA.

The plaintiffs are advocating for concrete changes at UCLA. They call for the hiring of an emergency planning expert focusing on the needs of people with disabilities and a thorough evaluation of the university’s compliance with ADA standards. They also emphasize the necessity for improved staffing at the Center for Accessible Education, better tracking of disability accommodations, and expanded transit options.

This case has implications beyond UCLA, challenging universities nationwide to acknowledge the importance of emergency preparedness and accessibility for all students. As UCLA prepares to host Paralympians during the 2028 Olympics, this lawsuit serves as a wake-up call for the institution. It represents an opportunity for UCLA to set a national standard by demonstrating a genuine commitment to disability rights rather than merely claiming it.

Currently, UCLA has a staff-to-student ratio of 1 to 1,281, which is significantly lower than the national average of 1 to 133, as highlighted in the complaint. The university’s response to this lawsuit will be crucial in ensuring that disabled students, faculty, and campus visitors receive the respect and support they deserve, urging UCLA to take a proactive role in fostering a truly inclusive educational environment.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) plays a vital role in guaranteeing equal access and opportunities for individuals with disabilities across public spaces, schools, and workplaces. When establishments neglect to address unsafe or non-compliant conditions, they not only jeopardize the well-being of people with disabilities but also undermine the principles of equity and inclusion. Raising these concerns with the responsible parties is an important first step. However, if your concerns are ignored or inadequately addressed, consulting an experienced ADA attorney becomes essential. These legal professionals can advocate for accountability and push for the necessary changes to uphold accessibility and justice for all. Contact us for a free consultation and take the first step toward justice. Together, we can hold negligent organizations accountable and advance the mission of true inclusivity.

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.