Takeaway: An employee who was fired after he took time off on an emergency basis to care for his disabled father could go forward with his claim for disability-based associational discrimination.
?An employee who was terminated from his job after he took time off on an emergency basis to care for his disabled father could proceed with his claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for disability-based associational discrimination, a California appeals court recently held. A lower court had dismissed the claim before trial.
The employer, which operates an automotive parts distribution facility, hired the employee as a general assembly worker. He later worked as a machine operator and then in the packing department.
From his hire in 1999 until October 2015, the employee received mostly positive annual performance reviews. In 2015, the employee began working as a “closer” in the packing department, packaging orders for shipment. His supervisor required everyone in his department to sign in and punch in on the time clock at the start of every work shift. The employee had been signing in as required. However, on Dec. 4, 2015, he refused to sign in for his shift. The employee was cited for insubordination and agreed to sign in going forward.
The employee was cited two more times for insubordination in February and March 2016 for failure to follow his supervisor’s directives and for using profanity toward his supervisor.
In December 2016, the employee’s supervisor informed his managers that the employee was leaving work at the end of his scheduled shift but before the orders were closed without informing anyone he was leaving, which he was required to do.
The employee explained that he had left early because he needed to be available for his father, who was in the hospital. According to the employee, his father was suffering from serious health ailments, including diabetes, lung and kidney disease, and prostate cancer.
The employee was not disciplined at that time but was told to inform his manager if he had to leave early. On Dec. 28, 2016, an HR representative met with the employee to discuss family care leave. The HR representative told the employee that he could take an unpaid leave of absence to care for his father. However, the employee said he could not afford to take unpaid leave and would rather use vacation time when he needed to take time off.
In late 2016 and early 2017, the employee took three days off work, using his accrued vacation time to care for his father during medical emergencies. In each instance, on the same day the employee learned of his father’s medical emergency, he told his supervisor that he would be absent that day.
On Feb. 27, 2017, the same day that the employee’s third request for leave was approved, his supervisor told him that he would be moved to a different position within the department. The employee said that he did not want to change jobs. On Feb. 28, 2017, the employee reported to work at the usual time. One hour later, he was fired, allegedly for insubordination.
The employee subsequently filed a lawsuit against his employer, claiming that the company terminated him because of his association with his disabled father in violation of the FEHA.
The trial court dismissed the claim before trial, and the employee appealed.
Associational Discrimination Claim
The FEHA prohibits an employer from subjecting an employee to an adverse employment action based on the employee’s protected status, including his or her physical disability. The act defines a “physical disability” as including a perception that the person is associated with someone who has a physical disability.
Therefore, the court explained, when the FEHA forbids discrimination based on a disability, it also forbids discrimination based on an employee’s association with another person who has a disability.
A plaintiff may establish his or her initial case of disability-based associational discrimination by submitting evidence that the employer had a motive to discriminate against a nondisabled employee who is merely associated with a disabled person, for example, by showing that the employer viewed the employee’s association as an expense, a distraction or a disability by association.
The employee, the court said, raised a triable issue of fact about whether the employer viewed the employee’s need for time off to care for his father as a distraction and an inconvenience. The time off requests, though processed and approved as requests to use accrued paid vacation time, were made on an emergency basis and on the same day as the requested time off. The employee took time off on an emergency basis three times in the three months before his termination.
Further, there was evidence that the last-minute requests placed a burden on the employer. The employee’s supervisor testified that the company was left short-staffed and that the employee’s co-workers had complained. In addition, the court said, the temporal proximity between the employee’s time-off requests and the company’s termination decision provided further support for the employee’s case.
The company argued that even if the employee proved his initial case of associational discrimination, he had not shown that the employer’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reason for the termination (the employee’s insubordination) was pretext for discriminatory animus. The employee argued that he raised a triable issue of pretext based on his supervisor singling him out for reassignment on the same day he approved the employee’s third emergency request for time off to care for his father—the day before he was terminated. The court agreed with the employee and reversed the trial court’s order dismissing the FEHA claim before trial.
Leyva v. Motorcar Parts of America, Calif. Ct. App., No. B307525 (April 20, 2023).
Joanne Deschenaux, J.D., is a freelance writer in Annapolis, Md.
