Employer Wasn't Required to Extend Leave as Reasonable Accommodation

An employer was not required to extend an employee's six-month leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation for her ankle injury, a California appellate court ruled. California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) does not require an employer to hold a position open indefinitely, the court noted.

The employee worked as a dispatcher for the city of Sacramento from 1994 to 2014. Sometime before early 2014, she injured her right ankle. She continued to work until the pain in her ankle increased while she was required to use a foot pedal as part of her job. By early 2014, the pain also interfered with walking and driving.

The employee requested to work part time because of the pain, and the request was granted. However, she never actually started working part time. She had surgery in June 2014 and was granted a medical leave of absence from June 11, 2014, to July 2, 2014. The letter approving her medical leave of absence notified the employee that, if her leave exceeded six months, her position would be filled and she would be put on a reinstatement list.

Over the next several months, the employee could not return to work and requested three additional medical leaves of absence, which were approved, until Sept. 29, 2014. The letters granting the leaves of absence again noted that, if her leave extended to six months, her position would be filled and she would be put on a reinstatement list.

The employee requested a fifth leave of absence because she scheduled ankle replacement surgery for October 2014. She asked to be on a medical leave of absence through the end of January 2015. However, the city approved her leave of absence only through Dec. 10, 2014, six months after she first went on leave.

The employee chose to retire on Dec. 11, 2014, because that allowed her to retain her medical benefits, though she was not planning to retire for another five years.

She filed a complaint against the city, alleging disability discrimination under FEHA for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. After a trial, a jury found that the employee could have performed the essential job duties of dispatcher with a reasonable accommodation, but the city did not fail to provide a reasonable accommodation. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the city, and the employee appealed.

Employer Provided Reasonable Accommodation

FEHA makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on a physical disability or to fail to attempt to make a reasonable accommodation for such an employee. A reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment to the work environment that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job he or she holds or desires. FEHA requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for the known disability of an employee unless doing so would produce undue hardship to the employer's operation.

The elements of a reasonable accommodation cause of action are:

• The employee suffered a disability.
• The employee could perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation.
• The employer failed to reasonably accommodate the employee's disability.

In this case, the court said, there was no dispute that the employee was an individual with a disability. The question presented was whether the evidence supported the jury's finding that the city did not fail to provide reasonable accommodation to the employee.

The court found that there was support for the jury's conclusion. The employee asked to work part time, and the city granted her request. The city also granted four of her requests for a leave of absence, and a fifth request was granted in part. The employee argued that the city did not suggest other possible accommodations that would allow her to return to work, but the record indicated she had not received medical clearance to return to work during the relevant time period. FEHA does not require an employer to hold a position open indefinitely, the court noted.

Nothing precluded the jury's implicit finding that a six-month medical leave of absence was a reasonable accommodation and that it was reasonable for the city to decline a longer absence, the court concluded, affirming the judgment for the city.  

Price v. City of Sacramento, Calif. Ct. App., No. C088482 (March 21, 2022).

Joanne Deschenaux, J.D., is a freelance writer in Annapolis, Md.