Hesperia Employment Attorneys

Moore v. Regents of Univ. of California, 248 Cal. App. 4th 216, 206 Cal. Rptr. 3d 841 (2016)

A former state university employee sued the university regents under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in interactive process, and retaliation, as well as causes of action under California Family Rights Act (CFRA) for interference and retaliation, stemming from the employee’s termination from her employment in university’s marketing and communications department after she was diagnosed with idiopathic cardiomyopathy. The Superior Court granted university summary judgment. The mployee appealed. The Court of Appeal held that: (1)  fact issues existed as to whether university’s nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating employee were pretextual, precluding summary judgment on FEHA discrimination claim; (2) the determination that the employee did not have a disability was not proper basis for denying FEHA claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in interactive process; (3) fact issues precluded summary judgment on employee’s FEHA claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in interactive process; (4) the amendment to FEHA providing for protection against retaliation when individual requested reasonable accommodation operated prospectively; (5) the employee’s request for accommodation by requesting time off for surgery did not constitute protected activity, and thus request did not support FEHA retaliation claim; (6) the employee did not engage in protected activity under FEHA retaliation provision by notifying university of her diagnosis; (7) fact issue precluded summary judgment on employee’s CFRA retaliation claim; and finally (8) fact issue precluded summary judgment on employee’s CFRA interference claim.  In its opinion the Court explained as follows: The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) proscribes two types of disability discrimination: (1) discrimination arising from employer’s intentionally discriminatory act against an employee because of his or her disability, or “disparate treatment discrimination,” and (2) discrimination resulting from an employer’s facially neutral practice or policy that has a disproportionate effect on employees suffering from a disability, or “disparate impact discrimination.” In order to prevail on a Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) discrimination claim, plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to show that an illegitimate criterion was a substantial factor in the particular employment decision. To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under McDonnell Douglas test, plaintiff must show actions taken by employer from which one can infer, if such actions remain unexplained, that it is more likely than not that such actions were based on prohibited discriminatory criterion.  In demonstrating that employer’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason for adverse employment action is false or pretextual under McDonnell Douglas test, employee cannot simply show that employer’s decision was wrong or mistaken, since factual dispute at issue is whether discriminatory animus motivated employer, not whether employer is wise, shrewd, prudent, or competent; rather, employee must demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence, and hence infer that employer did not act for asserted non-discriminatory reasons.