Contributors

Jasmin B. Bhandari

Principal

There has been an uptick in litigation in California surrounding disability discrimination claims, especially given the separate causes of action for failure to provide reasonable accommodations and failure to engage in the interactive process (to determine effective reasonable accommodations). 

We have previously discussed the murky waters with respect to these obligations, which intertwine the analysis of whether reasonable accommodations were available/provided with whether the parties engaged in the process to determine whether such accommodations were available. 

Recently, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's granting of summary adjudication in favor of the employer in a case involving these issues, Miller v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)  Miller was a correctional officer (CO) who was injured at work in a slip and fall, a common occurrence. She was given a medical release to work but with permanent restrictions about kneeling, squatting and other physical limitations. Once her worker's compensation benefits were exhausted she was placed on unpaid leave. She sought disability retirement benefits, which the Department rejected because it offered to place her in an alternate position - one she could do with her physical limitations - as a medical demotion. She did not accept this position because she had recently started mental health treatment that prevented her from working because her psychologist said she could not be "anywhere near CDCR." 

Disability discrimination

The Court of Appeal held that her permanent physical restrictions and inability to work due to her mental health treatment showed that she could not perform the essential functions of her job as a CO, allowing for summary adjudication as to the Department's ability to take an adverse employment action against her on the disability discrimination claim.  Plaintiff argued that the Department had not engaged in the interactive process and had not given her reasonable accommodations. However, the Court found that even if those two allegations were true, that would not lead to liability for disability discrimination because those are not "adverse employment actions" in this context. 

Reasonable accommodation

Miller argued that she was not accommodated because she was denied disability retirement benefits, but those were found not to be a "reasonable accommodation" because that is supposed to be something which allows the employee to perform the essential functions of the job. (Note that time off can be a reasonable accommodation if it is for recovery, treatment etc. such that the employee is expected to improve and return). However, the purpose of disability retirement benefits is to allow a disabled employee to be replaced by employees who can perform the job, which precludes the employee's return to work.

Failure to engage in the interactive process 

The Court held for the employer as to the failure to engage in the interactive process claim because the medical demotion was considered a reasonable accommodation offered and no evidence was presented that there was any available reasonable accommodation as to Plaintiff's inability to work for CDCR while receiving mental health treatment.  Miller argued that they had not explored other potential accommodations, she was at a disadvantage due to lack of information and negotiating ability, and that the employer did not consider the extent of available accommodations. However, the Court held that summary adjudication can be proper where there was no evidence that a reasonable accommodation was available to offer, even if the employer was acting in bad faith (which is what Plaintiff had argued). This supports the line of cases that require the employee to identify a reasonable accommodation that would have been available at the time the interactive process should have occurred. Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th  952, 981.

These are important points for employers and their counsel to keep in mind as they handle these complex return to work and reinstatement situations with injured or disabled workers.