By Anthony J. Oncidi
Anthony J. Oncidi is a partner in and the Chair of the Labor and Employment Department of Proskauer Rose LLP in Los Angeles, where he exclusively represents employers and management in all areas of employment and labor law. His telephone number is (310) 284-5690 and his email address is aoncidi@ proskauer.com. (Tony has authored this column without interruption for every issue of this publication since 1990.)
Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Med. Found., 237 Cal. App. 4th 78 (2015)
Michaelin Higgins-Williams worked as a clinical assistant in Sutter's Shared Services Department. Higgins-Williams reported to her treating physician that she was stressed because of interactions at work with human resources and her manager. Her physician diagnosed Higgins-Williams with "adjustment disorder with anxiety," and Sutter granted her a stress-related leave of absence of slightly more than 30 days. After returning from leave, Higgins-Williams received a negative performance evaluation and had additional conflicts with her manager. Shortly thereafter, she submitted a disability accommodation request form in which she sought a transfer to a different department and an additional leave of absence. Following additional leaves of absence for more than a year, Sutter eventually terminated Higgins-Williams's employment. In her lawsuit, Higgins-Williams alleged disability discrimination, wrongful termination, and related claims. The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment, and the court of appeal affirmed on the ground that Higgins-Williams was not disabled because "an employee's inability to work under a particular supervisor because of anxiety and stress related to the supervisor's standard oversight of the employee's job performance does not constitute a mental disability under FEHA." Because Higgins-Williams failed to inform her employer when or if she could return to work, her claim for violation of the CFRA/FMLA was also properly dismissed.
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2028 (2015)
Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, wore a headscarf when she interviewed for a job with Abercrombie & Fitch. Although the headscarf was not discussed during the interview, the store decided not to offer Elauf a position after speculating that she probably wore the headscarf for religious reasons and concluding that the headscarf would violate the store's "Look Policy," which prohibits the wearing of "caps" as too informal for Abercrombie's desired image. The EEOC, which sued Abercrombie on Elauf's behalf, obtained summary judgment based on its claim that the store violated Title VII. The appellate court reversed the district court on the ground that an employer cannot be liable for failing to accommodate a religious practice until the applicant or employee provides actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation. In this opinion, the United States Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals...
