JUNE 2006

JUDICIAL UPDATES

Employee Who Went on Leave for Anxiety and Depression Failed to Establish Claims of Disability Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate

The case of Williams v. Genentech, Inc., recently decided by the California Court of Appeal, is a good example of how an employer handled the situation involving an employee who took a medical leave and later sought disability accommodation. Rochelle Williams (“Employee”) worked for Genentech, Inc. (“Employer”) as a receptionist, where her job duties included greeting visitors, answering phones, directing calls, and distributing security badges. The receptionists had a certain protocol to follow when particular people entered the building. On one occasion in October 2000, Employee’s supervisors met with her about a complaint by security personnel that Employee failed to follow the required protocol. After the meeting, Employee began to cry uncontrollably and hyperventilated. She was transported to a hospital, where she was diagnosed as suffering an exacerbation of asthma. Employee began a medical leave at that time, and the leave was extended several times until she was fully released to work on May 15, 2001. During this seven-month period, she was diagnosed with depression and anxiety.

Under its policies, Employer provided six months of paid medical leave. The company’s policy also stated that employees who qualified for leave under the California Family Rights Act would be placed in the same or equivalent position upon return to work if the leave did not exceed 12 weeks in a 12-month period. Moreover, if an employee’s position was filled during leave, the employee would be given 60 days following return to work to locate a position for which the employee was qualified.

Soon after beginning leave, Employee told the senior human resources manager that she felt harassed and unfairly treated by her supervisor, and that she did not want to return to work in a position under that supervisor’s management. The HR manager investigated the complaint and found that the supervisor had not engaged in any improper conduct.

During the medical leave, Employee’s position was covered by three floater receptionists. This system, however, resulted in a number of problems for the business, including inadequate coverage for illnesses, vacations and planned sabbatical; receptionists’ lunch breaks were shortened; and poor morale.

In mid-January 2001, the HR manager sent a memo to the management team with suggestions about Employee’s expected return to work on January 22. They planned a follow-up meeting for January 29 to discuss strategy for addressing with Employee some of the issues that took place before she went on leave, and related issues. Employee’s medical leave was extended beyond January 22. On January 29, the HR manager met with the management team to discuss the need for a regular, full-time employee in Employee’s position, because of the adverse impact of continually using floaters. Because of Employee’s previous extensions of her medical leave, the management team had doubts about whether she would actually return to work in March, as was scheduled at the time. At the January 29 meeting, the team agreed to fill Employee’s position with a regular, full-time employee.

On January 31, the HR manager wrote to Employee to advise that her 12-week “position guarantee” status had been exhausted, and that the company was going to hire a replacement for her. Employer filled the position on February 26.

After her return to work in mid-May 2001, Employee received from Employer information about internal job search services. She was also informed that if she could not secure a position in the company within 60 days, her employment would be terminated. Between May and July, there were no vacant receptionist positions. Employee had no scientific education and limited work experience, so she was not qualified for any vacant non-receptionist position at the company. Employee was discharged effective July 16, 2001. Afterwards, she sued for disability discrimination (as well as race discrimination, failure to accommodate under the Fair Employment Housing Act, and failure to engage in the interactive process required by FEHA).

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Employer on all claims. As to the discrimination claim, the court found that Employee had failed to establish that she was a qualified individual with a disability who could perform the essential functions of her job at the time that Employer made the decision to fill her position. Employee provided no medical evidence to establish that she could have returned to her position with a reasonable accommodation. Moreover, the court observed that Employer had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for failing to hire Employee for one of the non-receptionist positions for which she expressed interest.

As to the claim of failure to accommodate her disability, the court rejected Employee’s argument that the seven months of leave that she received was insufficient as an accommodation. The court held that the leave in fact was a reasonable accommodation. Furthermore, the law did not require Employer to hold Employee’s position open indefinitely.

On the claim of failure to engage in the interactive process, the court noted that Employee provided no evidence suggesting that the accommodation that Employer was providing -- the leave of absence – was ineffective. Moreover, Employee’s request for a new supervisor did not trigger a new duty to initiate another interactive process.

This case illustrates the importance of good communication with an employee both before and during a medical leave of absence, including a thorough explanation of the leave policy and other benefits available to an employee. Also, a company should be sure to document the business reasons for a decision to fill the position of an employee who is on leave.

NEXT: Employee Deserved Opportunity to Prove “Regarded As” Disability Claim