Articles Posted in Disability Discrimination

A major health care provider Dialysis Clinic Inc. was sued for disability discrimination this week by EEOC. The lawsuit has been filed in the Eastern District Court in Sacramento.

The plaintiff Francisca Lee had worked at the company’s facility on East Southgate Drive in South Sacramento for 14 years when she was diagnosed with cancer. She took medical leave to have a mastectomy and chemotherapy, according to the allegations in the EEOC complaint. Four months later, according to the complaint, the company notified Lee by mail that she was being terminated for exceeding the time limit dictated by its medical leave policy

At the time of Lee being fired, she had been cleared by her physician to return to work without restrictions in less than two months, the complaint says. Lee, 71, was told she would have to reapply for an open position. However, when she did apply a little more than two months later, she was rejected. Not long after, according to a claim in the complaint, the company hired a newly-licensed nurse. Of course, the employer has denied all allegations like they always do.

Recently, one of our cases was dismissed after nearly two years of litigation in Sacramento Superior Court, because one key piece of evidence was missing. In that case, a State employee was deemed AWOL after not returning to work by the date, noted by her doctor. She requested an additional leave from her supervisor after having been on medical leave for nearly a year already at that time.

The supervisor refused to provide the same despite knowing about the claimant’s long history of injury, pain and treatment. That manager was firm that he was going to follow the instructions of then existing medical note, ordering the the employee return to work with specific restrictions. The employee did not return to work, but instead went to see her doctor who apparently extended her medical leave.

However, the claimant was not able to produce that medical note at the time the motion to dismiss the case was heard and also wasn’t able to prove that she provided the note to any of her manager prior to being deemed AWOL and terminated.

One of the common disability law issues that may arise at workplace is when an employee suffers an industrial injury, obtains FMLA leave for that injury and also goes on workers compensation leave, as instructed by his workers comp doctor. That employee may have also accrued paid time off.

Two common questions arise in this kind of situation:

1. Can the employer count FMLA and workers compensation leave concurrently?

My experience suggest that one of the reason for disability discrimination and failure to comply with disability laws in public / government agencies is the ignorance of disability laws and not understanding the obligations of the employer toward disabled workers among the managers and human resources personnel in these agencies.

Some of the managers that make critical decision of how to reasonably accommodate and employee and what constitutes an effective, reasonable accommodations have very little or no background or training in either human resources or disability laws. Many supervisors lack basic understanding of what qualifies as disability at workplace under ADA or FEHA. Some of the managers in state, county and municipal agencies get very high up in the ranks due to good performance and length of service alone, as usually there is no requirement to get high education in the public sector employment in order to continue to be promoted. While allowing employees from all backgrounds and all walks of life to have opportunities in high management, not requiring additional education or training when it comes to human resources and basic laws that govern employee’s right and duties leads to many employment and wrongful termination lawsuits against these agencies. Most often we hear about lawsuits against Department of Corrections and Department of Health and Human Services.

One of the common challenges in proving violation of disability rights in a wrongful termination case is showing that the employer knew that the employee had a qualifying condition or suffered an injury shortly before being terminated, and thus his or her termination was discriminatory or retaliatory.

In the absence of e-mails or faxes where the employee puts the employer on notice of his condition and the need for medical leave or accommodations to the medical condition, phone records may be a persuasive evidence in proving that the employee was likely retaliated after suffering an injury and successfully negotiating a settlement.

Suppose you suffer an on the job injury while operating an industrial equipment. You call your boss and/or human resources manager to let them know that you were injured, that you need to leave to seek medical attention, and you might need time off. They agree with you and informally allow you to leave work to take care of your injury. A few days later you are terminated for insubordination, poor performance, or some other abstract reason. When you argue in a legal action in court or in front of EEOC/DFEH that you were terminated because of your injury, your supervisor says that he never heard from you and did not know you suffered an injury before deciding to terminate you or that he didn’t even speak with you after you were injured. This is where your phone records reflecting at least that you made those calls after your injury can be extremely helpful. If you can, get them right away. If it has been a while since the subject day of when these important phone calls took place, subpoena those records from your phone provider or encourage your attorney to do the same.

Yesterday, I met with a client – a very pleasant lady in her mid thirties who was forced to quit from the SFMOMA (San Francisco Museum of Modern Arts) due to what appeared to be egregious violations of California disability laws at workplace. The former SFMOMA employee has been suffering from fairly severe scoliosis in her back and accompanying PTSD for several years. She submitted doctors’ letters to her employer requesting the museum to provide her with reasonable accommodations, but they systematically ignored it for several years, openly accusing the employee of making her symptoms up and also telling her that unless she is crippled or has a terminal illness, she is not considered disabled and will not receive any special treatment. The accommodations requested were minimal – to allow the employee to take a few hours off per month to see her doctor in order to relief her back pain symptoms.

Out of curiosity, I asked my client to stand up and show me the curvature of her back, and I was surprised to find how noticeable the degenerative changes in her back were. I wonder if her employer ever bothered to look at her back…

This unprecedented ignorance of the disability laws at workplace that employs several hundreds of employees and that has been a distinguished establishment with national recognition for many years is unacceptable and should be changed. I am not sure if it’s a wrong termination lawsuit or some involvement from the management that will trigger the change in the human resources management in that museum, but it seems to me that it’s only a matter of time until such systematic disregard for disability laws will lead to significant liability on the part of the San Francisco’s premier museum.

Employers often argue that because a worker’s health condition is temporary and passing, the condition can’t possibly be considered a disability under California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The assume, relying mostly on intuition, that the concept of disability necessarily entails some kind of permanent impairment.

The courts, however, disagree with this argument. In Diaz v. Federal Express Corp.(2005) the court specifically discussed the issue of temporary physical and mental conditions. In that case, Federal Express argued that because the Claimant severe anxiety attacks were only temporary and lasted just over one year, that condition couldn’t possibly fall within the protection of FEHA. The federal court rejected that argument. The court noted that the reading of the law itself suggests that a temporary condition might be a protected disability, entitling an employee to reasonable accommodations. The statute defines a disabled person as one regarded as having or having had a condition that makes achievement of a major life activity difficult, or the one that has not present disabling effect, but that may become a disability in the future.

It is unclear what weight, if any, should be give to how long a condition lasts in determining its disabling effect as the relevant statute Cal. Gov. Code section 12926.1(c) is noticeable silent on that issue. Thus, one way to interpret the law is to treat the duration of the condition as only mildly relevant in simply showing whether how serious the condition is, as one might argue that part of being “serious” is having a lasting effect on a personal physical or mental health.