Recent Employment Law Decisions

California Courts of Appeal

Termination Based on a Mistaken Belief About an Employee’s Disability is Direct Evidence of Discrimination, Regardless of Animosity or Ill Will

GLYNN v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (ALLERGAN, INC.)

ALLERGAN TERMINATED GLYNN BECAUSE HE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR LONG TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS, EVEN THOUGH GLYNN WAS ABLE TO WORK AND HAD NOT APPLIED FOR LONG TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS

Petitioner John Glynn worked for Real Party Allergan in a sales position that required driving to doctors’ offices. Glynn took a medical leave due to a serious eye condition and provided a note from his doctor stating that Glynn could not safely drive. Glynn was able to return to work in a position that did not require driving, and Allergan’s reasonable accommodation policy included reassignment to a vacant position. Glynn repeatedly asked for help in getting a new job within Allergan and applied for several open positions, but Allergan never reassigned him. A temporary benefits employee sent Glynn a letter informing him that his employment was terminated effective immediately because he could not return to work by a certain date with or without reasonable accommodation, and that he was approved for Long Term Disability (“LTD”). The temp claimed a mistaken

belief that she was required to terminate Glynn once he became eligible for LTD. Glynn had never applied for LTD. The trial court granted summary adjudication of Glynn’s disability discrimination and retaliation causes of action. Glynn filed a petition for writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ ordering the trial court to vacate its summary adjudication order and enter a new order denying summary adjudication of disability discrimination and retaliation. The trial court refused to change its order.

THERE IS DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION WHERE THE EMPLOYER’S ADVERSE ACTION WAS MOTIVATED BY THE PLAINTIFF’S DISABILITY

The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework does not apply when the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination. In disability discrimination cases, the threshold issue is whether there is direct evidence that the motive for the employer’s conduct was related to the employee’s physical or mental condition. The employee is not required to prove animosity or ill will because disability discrimination laws protect an employee from the employer’s erroneous or mistaken beliefs about the employee’s disability. Since Glynn provided direct evidence of disability discrimination, that Allergan terminated him because the temp mistakenly believed he was unable to work, he provided sufficient evidence to defeat summary adjudication. However, the McDonnell Douglas framework does apply to FEHA retaliation claims. Glynn sent four emails complaining that Allergan was failing to accommodate his disability. Glynn was terminated two months after he complained, and temporal proximity is sufficient to shift the burden to the employer to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for the termination. Allergan failed to articulate any legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the termination. Therefore, grant of summary adjudication on retaliation was improper.

CELA INVOLVEMENT

Congratulations to CELA members Frank Magnanimo and Tracy Fehr!

COA, 2nd Dist., Div. 4. Filed 11/13/19. 42 Cal.App.5th 47. Opinion by Justice Currey.

Read More

Read All Decisions