In Hernandez v. Rancho Santiago Community College Dist., published May 3, 2018, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 3 affirmed a judgment after bench trial holding that the defendant district failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff or engage in an interactive process with her, in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. In a previous hiring by the district, the plaintiff was injured on the job. During the hiring at issue, she was a probationary employee. When she had been working for the district for six months, her doctor recommended surgery for conditions caused by the workplace injury. She spoke to the district's risk manager, and told him she was concerned that she would lose her job if she had the surgery during her probationary period. He told her she could not be fired on a workers compensation case. She said that if he had told her differently, she would have put off her surgery until after her probationary period. She estimated she would be off work three to four months. The district granted her medical leave. While she was on leave, the district terminated her employment. When she called human resources, she was told that she should have known better than to take personal leave while on probation. She was not told she could reapply for her position. The district argued that it had reasonably accommodated the plaintiff by giving her medical leave, and that under Education Code section 88013(a) it had to terminate her after twelve months' probation or else she would have become a permanent employee without having undergone evaluation.
The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the district was liable under FEHA for not reasonably accommodating the plaintiff. It held that the district could have deducted from the statutory probationary period the time that the plaintiff was on medical leave. Because it did not, it failed to reasonably accommodate her. The appellate court also agreed with the trial court that the district failed to participate in a good faith interactive process with the plaintiff. Telling the plaintiff she could not be fired while on medical leave, and then firing her while she was on leave, was not acting in good faith. Nor was rebuffing the plaintiff when she contacted human resources for an accommodation.
Comments