California Court of Appeals Upholds Ruling on Disability Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

In a recent decision by the Fifth District California Court of Appeals, the court upheld summary judgment in favor of an employer in a case involving claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The employee, who was terminated by the County, alleged that the termination was based on his medical conditions and physical disability and that he was retaliated against for making protected complaints about his treatment.

The court’s decision highlights the challenges employees face when pursuing claims of discrimination and retaliation, particularly when an employer has documented reasons for termination unrelated to the employee’s disability or complaints. However, it also serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding your rights under FEHA and taking appropriate legal action when violated.

Under FEHA, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on a physical disability or medical condition. This includes making employment decisions—such as termination, demotion, or changes in job responsibilities—based on an employee’s disability. Additionally, FEHA prohibits retaliation against employees who engage in protected activities, such as filing complaints about discrimination or requesting reasonable accommodations for a disability.

In this particular case, the employee claimed that the employer’s decision to terminate his employment was motivated by his medical conditions and that the employer retaliated against him after he made complaints about his treatment. While the employee believed his rights under FEHA had been violated, the court ultimately found that the employer had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the termination. The evidence did not support the claims of retaliation.

Proving disability discrimination in the workplace can be complex, mainly when an employer provides documented reasons for its actions that appear unrelated to the employee’s disability. To succeed in a disability discrimination claim under FEHA, an employee must demonstrate that the adverse employment action was taken because of their disability. This often requires showing that the employer’s reasons for the action were a pretext for discrimination.

In cases like the one above, the court looks at the evidence presented by both sides to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that should be decided at trial. If the employer can provide legitimate reasons for the termination, and the employee cannot produce sufficient evidence to show that these reasons are a pretext, the court may grant summary judgment in favor of the employer, as it did in this case.

Retaliation claims are another critical area of employment law under FEHA. When an employee files a complaint about discrimination or requests accommodations for a disability, they are engaging in protected activities. Retaliation occurs when an employer takes adverse actions against the employee in response to these protected activities. This could include termination, demotion, reduced hours, or other adverse employment decisions.

To prove a retaliation claim, an employee must show a causal link between their protected activity and the adverse action taken by the employer. This often involves presenting evidence that the timing of the adverse action was suspicious or that the employer’s reasons for the action were inconsistent or unconvincing.

In the case discussed, the employee alleged that the employer retaliated against him for making complaints about his treatment related to his medical conditions. However, the court found that the evidence did not support a retaliation claim, emphasizing the importance of robust documentation and evidence when pursuing these claims. Employees should keep detailed records of their complaints, any responses from their employer, and any changes in their employment status after making a complaint.

If you have questions about your employer’s questionable actions, give the Nourmand Law Firm, APC a call to discuss your situation with an experienced Los Angeles employment attorney.