Litigation & Case Law Update
| Publication year | 2016 |
| Author | By Christopher Whitman and Donna Mooney* |
By Christopher Whitman and Donna Mooney*
While FEHA broadly defines "disability" to include a perception that the employee is associated with a disabled person, the two-to-one panel decision in Castro-Ramirez is the first published case to hold that employers have a duty under FEHA to reasonably accommodate employees who are associated with disabled persons.
Plaintiff Luis Castro-Ramirez was a truck driver for Dependable Highway Express ("DHE"). Castro-Ramirez informed DHE that he needed a schedule that would allow him to administer dialysis for his son in the evenings. DHE accommodated this request for several years by giving him routes that started earlier in the day. Castro-Ramirez performed his job satisfactorily with no problems.
However, when a new supervisor nicknamed "Junior" took over the scheduling of routes, he changed Castro-Ramirez's schedule so that he was unable to help his son. This occurred despite the prior supervisor's instruction to Junior that he should accommodate Castro-Ramirez because of his son's special needs, and despite the availability of early morning routes. Castro-Ramirez complained a number of times, but Junior denied his request, laughed in his face, made up a false complaint from a customer, and told Castro-Ramirez that he was fired. Castro-Ramirez returned to DHE for three consecutive days to request an alternate schedule, but on the third day he was fired for refusing his assignment.
Castro-Ramirez sued DHE alleging violations of various FEHA provisions, including disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate a disability. For unknown reasons, Castro-Ramirez abandoned his failure to accommodate claim. The trial court granted summary judgment for DHE because—purportedly—the evidence did not show that the termination was based on Castro-Ramirez's association with his disabled son, or in retaliation for his scheduling requests. Castro-Ramirez appealed.
Citing the abundance of evidence to create a factual dispute over the grounds for terminating Castro-Ramirez, the Court of Appeal for the Second District reversed the trial court. Castro-Ramirez rejected DHE's argument that discrimination claims under FEHA are limited to the disability of the employee, and held that Castro-Ramirez presented evidence that his association with his disabled son was a substantial factor in his termination. The court focused on the statutory definition of "disability" in concluding that FEHA forbids discrimination based on the employee's association with a disabled person.
Given that Castro-Ramirez abandoned his failure to accommodate claim, it is unusual that the court extended its analysis to hold that FEHA also requires employers to reasonably accommodate associations with disabled persons. Although the majority opinion explained that the accommodation issue was relevant to and intertwined with the discrimination claim, the dissent argued that there was no reason to address the abandoned accommodation claim. While the dissent also disagreed that employers have a duty under FEHA to accommodate associations with disabled persons, Castro-Ramirez is binding in the Second District and persuasive authority elsewhere in California. Accordingly, employers are advised to train their managers to engage in the interactive process when employees request an accommodation to care for disabled persons.
The purpose of municipal zoning ordinances is to balance and harmonize the often-conflicting interests of the various stakeholders in our communities. T-Mobile West is the first published case to hold that the constitutional police power of local governments to impose aesthetic conditions on permits is not preempted by the Public Utilities Code provisions that grant wireless carriers the right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial