Alert: California Court Holds That Disability Accommodation Did Not Require Assigning New Supervisor Or Maintaining Job Position During Indefinite Leave

May 15, 2006

On May 9, 2006, the California Court of Appeal (First District) rejected an employee’s claims that she was entitled to disability accommodation in the form of supervisor replacement or maintenance of her position while she remained on an indefinite leave of absence.

In Williams v. Genentech, 06 CDOS 3848, Plaintiff was hospitalized for stress and exacerbation of asthma following her supervisor’s performance criticisms.  She thereafter took a seven month medical leave of absence.  The employer’s written policies stated that it would not guarantee an employee’s return to position from a medical leave extending beyond 12 weeks.  The policy also provided that, if an employee’s position was filled during a leave, the employee would have 60 days to obtain a different position within the company, with salary paid only during the first 30 days.

During her leave, Plaintiff requested that she be assigned a different supervisor upon her return because she felt harassed by the criticism.  The employer investigated, determined that the supervisor had behaved properly and did not respond to the change request.  After over 12 weeks of leave, during which her physician had diagnosed her as “totally incapacitated” and provided no firm return date, the employer filled her position.  After seven months of leave, Plaintiff advised that she was ready to return to work.  She was unable to locate an open position for which she was qualified and she was terminated.

Plaintiff brought suit alleging that the employer had violated disability laws by (1) failing to accommodate her request for a different supervisor, (2) filling her position, and (3) not providing her a position upon her return to work.  The California Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment against these claims, finding that the employer had provided a reasonable and effective accommodation by granting Plaintiff’s numerous extensions for leave and holding her position open for more than 12 weeks in accordance with its policies.  

Finding that replacing Plaintiff had been reasonable, the court cited (1) the number of times Plaintiff’s leave had been extended, (2) the uncertainty of her return date during her seven months leave, and (3) the employer’s showing of hardship in covering vacations and leaves due to Plaintiff’s absence.  Also, because the employer had granted the leave and had no duty to assure a stress-free environment, the employer had no obligation to grant Plaintiff’s proposed alternative accommodation of changing supervisors.

The Williams decision demonstrates that employers need not provide the accommodation requested by an employee if another reasonable and effective accommodation is provided.  The case also demonstrates the importance of keeping records of an employee’s leave of absence, including documentation of any granted extensions and any hardships suffered by the employer as a result of the employee’s absence.  Employees should be advised in writing of the accommodations which are being provided.