A new California Court of Appeal ruling underscores the dangers of disciplining or terminating an employee for absences that may be protected by the family and medical leave laws. We’ll tell you what went wrong here so you can avoid a similar problem.
Employee Disciplined For Medical Absences
Carla Dudley, a CalTrans supervisor, took time off from work for medical appointments and testing for and treating diabetes. She claimed that her supervisor criticized her for the absences and threatened her with disciplinary action.
When Dudley took additional time off, claiming the supervisor’s harassment aggravated her condition, CalTrans reduced her salary and suspended her for 10 days. CalTrans also denied her request to telecommute or work an alternative schedule so she could attend medical appointments, and turned down her request for a different supervisor. Following another medically related absence, Dudley was eventually terminated for absenteeism.
Lawsuit Revived
Dudley sued, charging that CalTrans violated state and federal disability bias laws by refusing to accommodate her and firing her. A court dismissed her lawsuit on the grounds that she didn’t qualify as disabled because her frequent absences precluded her from performing her essential job duties as a supervisor.
400+ pages of state-specific, easy-read reference materials at your fingertips—fully updated! Check out the Guide to Employment Law for California Employers and get up to speed on everything you need to know.
But now a California Court of Appeal has reinstated Dudley’s lawsuit, ruling that she could claim that CalTrans retaliated against her for taking protected medical leave. The court said that to proceed with her lawsuit, Dudley had to show only that she was eligible for and took family and medical leave and then suffered an adverse employment consequence for taking time off.
Employee Can Sue For Retaliation
According to the court, Dudley satisfied the requirements for a family leave retaliation claim. The court ruled that diabetes qualifies as a serious health condition for family leave purposes because it is a chronic condition requiring continuing treatment. And Dudley pointed to a string of adverse actions, including criticism from her supervisor and her suspension and ultimate termination. The case will now return to the lower court, where CalTrans will have to demonstrate that it had legitimate nonretaliatory reasons for its actions to avoid liability.
Use Caution
This case highlights that it’s illegal to discipline, terminate or take other adverse action against an employee who exercises the right to take family leave. Plus, even if an employee’s medical condition doesn’t qualify for state or federal disability law protection, you may still need to consider whether absences in connection with that condition qualify under the family leave laws.