The California Family Rights Act (CFRA) entitles eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of leave in a 12-month period to recover from their own serious health condition, among other things. But what if an employee takes more than 12 weeks of leave? The California Court of Appeal recently answered that critical question.
Attorney Lauren M. Cooper of the San Francisco office of Epstein Becker & Green, PC, explains the case.
Employee returns to work after 19 weeks of leave
On April 3, 2006, Katrina Rogers, a personnel officer in the Executive Office for the County of Los Angeles, took a medical leave because of work-related stress. The county notified her of her right to 12 weeks of job-protected leave under the CFRA and designated her leave as CFRA leave beginning on April 3, 2006.
On April 17, after Rogers began her leave, the county appointed a new executive officer, who subsequently implemented several changes to streamline the organization and make it run more efficiently.
In May, as part of the reorganization, the new executive officer decided to bring in a new personnel officer to replace Rogers. The decision was made in hopes of bringing some fresh eyes into the organization and wasn’t made because of Rogers’ leave.
How To Comply with California and Federal Leave Laws — newly updated for 2012!
Around the time the decision was made to replace Rogers, the executive officer tried to identify a comparable position in which to place her once she returned from leave. Rogers wasn’t notified of any potential transfer while she was out on leave.
Returning employee retires after learning of transfer — then sues
On August 14, 2006, 19 weeks after her leave began, Rogers returned to work. On her first day back, she received notice of her transfer to another department within the county, which was to be effective August 21, 2006. She was upset and hostile when she learned of the transfer, believing it was equivalent to a demotion, not a transfer to a comparable position.
On August 21, the day the transfer was to take place, Rogers sent the county notice of her retirement. She ultimately filed suit against her former employer, asserting various claims, including violation of her CFRA rights.
Jury awards $356,000 in damages…
At trial, the jury found in favor of Rogers and determined that the county had interfered with her CFRA rights by transferring her to a noncomparable position and had retaliated against her for exercising her CFRA rights. The jury awarded her $356,000 in damages.
…But appellate court disagrees
The county appealed the trial court’s decision, contending that Rogers’ interference claim was barred under the law and there was insufficient evidence to support her retaliation claim. The California Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the trial court’s judgment.
Confused about an important leave-related issue? Don’t be.
In reaching that conclusion, the court considered two issues: (1) whether the county interfered with Rogers’ CFRA rights by transferring her to a noncomparable position and (2) whether the county retaliated against her for exercising her right to take CFRA leave.
Tune in tomorrow for the court’s analysis of the issues.
Download your free copy of Compliance Guide to the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act today!
Even though the employer ultimately prevailed, it still lost money and time defending itself. Maybe it could avoided this mess if it had communicated better with the employee–e.g., telling her about the change before she returned. It’s possible that the jury’s award was based in part on the jurors thinking that was an unfair way of handling the situation.
Even though the employer ultimately prevailed, it still lost money and time defending itself. Maybe it could avoided this mess if it had communicated better with the employee–e.g., telling her about the change before she returned. It’s possible that the jury’s award was based in part on the jurors thinking that was an unfair way of handling the situation.