California and federal law prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with physical or mental disabilities and require, in appropriate circumstances, that employers make reasonable accommodations for known disabilities. The federal law is embodied in the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) while the California law is set for in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Significant differences between the state and federal laws exist that are explained in the new 2024 edition of the Employment Discrimination and EEO Practice Manual for California Employers by Attorney Richard J. Simmons of Sheppard Mullin, which is published by Castle Publications, LLC.
1. The Miller v. Department Of Corrections Case
The requirements of the FEHA were examined by the California Court of Appeal in its September 23, 2024 decision in Miller v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, __ Cal. App. __ (2024). In Miller, the plaintiff had been employed as a correctional officer with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) at the California Institute for Women since 2008. In 2016, she was injured as the result of a slip and fall incident while working off-site in a temporary assignment assisting with officer recruitment. In 2018, the CDCR placed her on an unpaid leave of absence after her wage replacement benefits in the worker’s compensation system were exhausted. Eventually, the CDCR offered her an alternative position that would accommodate her work restrictions. However, she did not accept the position offered, informed the CDCR that she suffered from a previously undisclosed mental disability that prevented her from returning to work while receiving treatment, and has remained on an unpaid leave of absence since that time.
a. The Lawsuit And Summary Judgment Motion
In 2020, Miller filed suit under the FEHA, alleging, in part, (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to accommodate, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) failure to prevent discrimination, and (5) retaliation. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the CDCR after concluding that Miller was not qualified because she could not work. After Miller appealed the judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed.
b. The Undisputed Facts
It was undisputed that Miller incurred a physical injury after a slip and fall incident in June 2016; she did not return to work while receiving treatment for her injuries; she received wage replacement benefits through June 2018 while on leave receiving treatment; and she was placed on an unpaid leave of absence in July 2018. It was also undisputed that her physician determined in 2018 she had reached “maximum medical improvement” and would be subject to permanent work restrictions as a result. The restrictions precluded lifting, pushing, or pulling items over 30 pounds; repetitive bending, twisting, or stooping; and kneeling or squatting. It was further undisputed that the essential functions of a correctional officer required the physical ability to run, climb, lift and carry, stoop, crawl and crouch, push and pull, brace, and twist. Finally, Miller did not dispute she was disabled as the result of her physical injuries and the impact those injuries had on her mental health.
c. Miller’s Physician
The employer deposed the physician who treated Miller’s physical injuries. The physician confirmed that as of August 2018, he determined that Miller had reached “maximum medical improvement” and ordered permanent work restrictions consisting of: (1) no lifting, pushing, or pulling items over 30 pounds; (2) no repetitive bending, twisting, or stooping at the waist; and (3) no kneeling or squatting. The physician was shown a document outlining the essential work functions of a correctional officer and identified several functions he believed Miller was incapable of performing given her permanent restrictions.
2. The Legal Analysis
The Court of Appeal explained that each of Miller’s five causes of action that were the subject of summary judgment were premised upon alleged FEHA violations. The court recognized the FEHA prohibits several employment practices relating to physical disabilities.
First, it prohibits employers from refusing to hire, discharging, or otherwise discriminating against employees because of their physical disabilities. Second, it prohibits employers from failing to make reasonable accommodation(s) for the known physical disabilities of employees. Third, it prohibits employers from failing to engage in a timely and good faith interactive process with employees to determine effective reasonable accommodations. Fourth, it prohibits acts of retaliation against employees who engage in various forms of protected activity associated with its provisions.
3. An Employee Must Show The Ability To Perform The Essential Functions Of The Job
The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication as to each cause of action. In an interesting passage, the court observed that, instead of litigating the employer’s reasons for the action, disputes in disability cases focus on (a) whether the employee was able to perform essential job functions, (b) whether there were reasonable accommodations that would have allowed the employee to perform those functions, and (c) whether a reasonable accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship on the employer.
a. Employees Must Be Qualified
The court explained that this analysis occurs because, unlike other forms of unlawful discrimination, the FEHA “specifically limits the reach” of its proscription against discrimination on the base of disability, “excluding from coverage those persons who are not qualified, even with reasonable accommodation, to perform essential job duties.” In other words, the employer’s motive for any alleged adverse employment action becomes subject to scrutiny only after the employee meets the burden to show the ability to perform the essential functions of the job.
b. The Burden In Disability Cases
The court next stated that an employer could either (1) present evidence to show that its motivation for any adverse employment action was unrelated to the plaintiff’s alleged disability, or (2) present evidence to show that it was not prohibited from taking an adverse employment action because the plaintiff’s disability rendered her unable to perform the essential duties of her job.
The court determined that the CDCR met its initial burden on summary adjudication, but that Miller failed to meet her corresponding burden in opposition to the motion. Specifically, Miller did not show a material dispute of fact with evidence regarding her ability to perform the essential duties of her job with or without an accommodation. Based on this finding, each of her remaining claims fell sequentially under the court’s analysis. As one example, the court found her claim that she could sue the employer for “not preventing discrimination” was illogical where there was no discrimination to begin with. It determined there was “no logic that says an employee who has not been discriminated against can sue an employer for not preventing discrimination that didn’t happen.”
4. Conclusion
The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court properly granted summary adjudication on each cause of action alleged by Miller. It thus affirmed the judgment and authorized the employer to recover its costs on appeal.
To read more articles like this one, subscribe to the ALERT Newsletter today!
About The Author
Richard J. Simmons is a Partner in the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP in Los Angeles. He represents employers in various employment law matters involving litigation throughout the country and general advice regarding state and federal wage and hour laws, employment discrimination, wrongful discharge, employee discipline and termination, employee benefits, affirmative action, union representation proceedings, and arbitrations. Mr. Simmons received his B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of Massachusetts, where he was a Commonwealth Scholar and graduated in the Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society. He received his J.D. from Berkeley Law at the University of California at Berkeley where he was the Editor-in-Chief of the Industrial Relations Law Journal, now the Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law.
Mr. Simmons argued the only case before the California Supreme Court that produced a victory for employers and business in 2018. He was recently recognized as the Labor and Employment Attorney of the Year by the Los Angeles Business Journal and was inducted into the Employment Lawyers Hall of Fame. He has lectured nationally on wage and hour, employment discrimination, wrongful termination, and other employment and labor relations matters. He is a member of the National Advisory Board to the Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, published by Berkeley Law at the University of California at Berkeley. He was also appointed by the California Industrial Welfare Commission as a member of three Minimum Wage Boards for the State of California.