Challenging Employer Pretexts in California Heart Attack Termination Cases

Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. Insights Team2025-11-07T02:06:25-08:00

📌 Key Takeaways Legal Framework for Disability Termination Claims: California Government Code § 12940 and the federal ADA prohibit employers from terminating qualified employees due to a disability, including post-heart attack conditions. Pretext and Burden-Shifting Standard: On summary judgment disability discrimination cases are subject to the McDonnell Douglas framework, where employees must show a prima facie case, employers must state a lawful reason, and claimants may then demonstrate that the reason is pretextual. Indicators of Discriminatory Motive: Red flags such as shifting employer justifications, sudden negative performance documentation, or selective policy enforcement may support an inference of unlawful termination. Failure to Accommodate: Lack of engagement in the interactive process or disregard for appropriate diagnostic and clinical evaluation may signal legal noncompliance with disability accommodation duties. Comparative Treatment Evidence: When similarly situated non-disabled employees are retained under similar conditions, it may strengthen claims that termination was discriminatory. Understanding how courts examine timing, documentation, and comparative evidence helps readers recognize legal protections in post-heart attack termination cases. For individuals in Los Angeles recovering from a heart attack, being terminated shortly after returning to work can be both a personal and legal inflection point. While employers may cite neutral reasons such as restructuring or performance, disability laws under California Government Code § 12940 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., provide protections when those reasons conceal discriminatory motives. This article explores the legal concept of pretext—a seemingly legitimate justification masking unlawful intent—and how it functions in disability-related termination cases. Understanding the nature of employer pretexts is essential for anyone concerned about the legal implications of being dismissed after a serious medical event. Legal Foundations and Burden-Shifting in Disability Discrimination Cases In the legal context, a pretext refers to an employer’s explanation for termination that appears lawful but may actually conceal discrimination. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the ADA prohibit adverse employment actions based on a qualifying disability, such as a heart condition that substantially limits major life activities. The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework that these cases often go through on summary judgment is as follows: The employee must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination—demonstrating they have a disability, were qualified for the role, and were terminated under circumstances suggesting bias. The employer must then articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination. The burden returns to the employee to show that this stated reason is a pretext for discrimination. A key issue in this phase is whether there is a causal connection between the employee’s medical condition and the termination. Evidence does not need to be direct; instead, the trier of fact considers whether inconsistencies or timing support an inference of discriminatory motivation. Employer Defense Patterns That May Raise Legal Questions Not all terminations following a medical event are unlawful. However, certain defense patterns may raise questions under FEHA and the ADA: Shifting Justifications: If an employer alters the stated reason for termination over time, this may undermine credibility. Temporal Proximity:... Read more