California: Employer Wins in Case Involving Employee with Lifting Restriction

Takeaway: Procedural missteps might result in prolonged litigation, such as having to defend claims before a jury in the first place, even if they don’t necessarily lead to liability.

An information technology worker with a lifting restriction failed to persuade a jury that she could perform her job’s essential functions. The California Court of Appeal affirmed a ruling in the employer’s favor, despite its finding that the employer’s process of determining the essential job functions was flawed.

In April 2017, an on-the-job incident occurred in which the plaintiff, who worked for Riverside County, Calif., rode in a work vehicle where a fire extinguisher had exploded. As a result of exposure to chemicals in the fire extinguisher, she developed a condition called chemical pneumonia. To address her condition, she saw a doctor, who performed a full physical evaluation. A medical assistant checked a circle on an injury form indicating that the plaintiff “constantly” had to lift 51 to 75 pounds. The assistant filled out the form at or near the time the assistant talked to the patient.

The doctor issued restrictions on the plaintiff’s return to work, including no lifting of more than 20 pounds; no prolonged sitting, standing, or walking; no repetitive neck bending or neck motions; no climbing or kneeling; and no exposure to chemicals or their fumes and vapors.

The next day, the plaintiff went to work, but HR told her that her disability could not be accommodated. She was sent home on unpaid medical leave. The plaintiff protested that she rarely had to lift anything heavier than 20 pounds and could change positions.

An HR professional commissioned an analysis of the plaintiff’s job. The job analysis was performed by a supervisor in the IT department but not the plaintiff’s supervisor, who was out on vacation. The HR professional emailed the person who performed the job analysis to perform the analysis specifically for the plaintiff’s position. But the supervisor performing the job analysis testified that she never saw that instruction. Instead, she based her responses on her knowledge of “what the techs do on a regular basis.”

The supervisor who conducted the analysis concluded that the job “occasionally [involves] lifting, carrying, pushing or pulling 50-100 pounds and/or frequently lifting, carrying, pushing or pulling 20-50 pounds, and/or continuous lifting, carrying, pushing, or pulling 10-20 pounds.”

The head of the Riverside County department told HR that the plaintiff had to lift more than 20 pounds on a regular basis and was required to kneel regularly to crawl under desks to connect wires for equipment.

HR discussed these reports with the plaintiff. The plaintiff said she had not performed those specific duties in months but acknowledged that they were essential job duties.

The plaintiff’s work restrictions subsequently were amended to no lifting more than 30 pounds and no prolonged sitting, standing, or walking in excess of 30 minutes.

While the plaintiff’s leave continued, she asked to be considered for other positions, including on the IT help desk, which the plaintiff believed required the same skill set but without the lifting requirement. HR replied that it first would determine whether the plaintiff would be able to keep her current position; only if that was denied would it begin searching for alternate positions.

The plaintiff’s doctor subsequently designated her as temporarily totally disabled.

After receiving the updated work restriction, HR talked with the plaintiff. When HR asked the plaintiff whether she believed she would eventually be able to return to full duty, the plaintiff said her condition was not improving. HR discussed the matter with the head of IT, who recommended that any further medical leave be denied.

On Nov. 13, 2017, Riverside County sent a letter to the plaintiff informing her that any further leave was denied. In addition, the county decided against looking for any alternate positions for the plaintiff, reasoning that because she was totally disabled, she could not work in any position. However, the plaintiff would remain on authorized absence pending next steps in the interactive process to identify an accommodation, provided the plaintiff continued to give Riverside County timely updates on her condition. The plaintiff was given an option to internally appeal the decision to the HR director, which the plaintiff did not do.

Two weeks later, the plaintiff retired. This was a service retirement, not a disability retirement.

The plaintiff sued, alleging failure to reasonably accommodate her and unlawful discrimination based on disability.

The jury ruled in Riverside County’s favor, but it found that the county did not participate in a timely, good-faith interactive process and failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination. It also concluded that these failures did not harm the plaintiff.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed this judgment, saying there was no harm because the plaintiff “could not actually have performed the essential job functions regardless.”

The process for determining the plaintiff’s essential job functions was flawed, the California Court of Appeal stated, noting that the plaintiff’s particular job was not analyzed. But “it does not follow that the ultimate result of that process was incorrect,” the court added.

The supervisor conducting the analysis was knowledgeable about the work the tech workers did in general. The plaintiff testified that the supervisor’s analysis was inaccurate, but the jury was not required to believe that testimony in light of evidence contradicting her testimony, the California Court of Appeal stated.

The court also disagreed that the injury form in which the plaintiff appeared to admit she regularly had to lift more than 50 pounds at work was erroneously admitted into evidence over her hearsay objection. The medical record satisfied the business records exception to hearsay and “was highly probative on the main factual issue in the case,” the scope of the plaintiff’s essential job duties, the California Court of Appeal said.

Salcedo v. County of Riverside, Cal. Ct. App., No. G062403 (July 3, 2024).