Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Cal.: Dollar General warehouse employee with back injury heads towards trial with various claims, (Sep 23, 2025)

By Robert Margolis, J.D.

Though whether the employee communicated his ability and intent to return to work after his leave expired was disputed, a reasonable jury could find that he did communicate that intent and was terminated without an accommodation or interactive process.

In light of a Dollar General warehouse employee’s “overall narrative” regarding the employer’s begrudging response to his accommodation requests, its termination of his employment after he exhausted leave, and its failure to offer reasonable accommodation or engage in an interactive process, a federal district court in California has denied the employer’s summary judgment motion on the employee’s claims for discrimination and retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). It also denied the employer’s motion as to his claims for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (2) declaratory relief, and (3) punitive damages. However, it granted the employer’s motion as to a FEHA harassment claim and claims for discrimination, retaliation, and harassment under the California Family Rights Act (Juarez v. DG Strategic VII, LLC, et al., No. 1:23-cv-00142-KJM-CDB (E.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2025)).

The employee worked at the employer’s warehouse in Lebec, California, where his job was to fulfill orders by retrieving merchandise and dropping it off at the warehouse’s shipping dock. In March 2020, he injured his back lifting a heavy box. He received two doctor’s notes, asking for leave to recover from his injury and stating that he was restricted to lifting less than 20 pounds while at work. He was then given light duty for a period before returning to full duty on and off (with intermittent injury leaves) for about the next year.

However, the employee alleges that after this initial begrudging toleration of his work accommodation request, the employer was no longer willing to accommodate or even engage in an interactive process by the summer of 2021. After his formal leave expired in September 2021, he claims the employer made no attempt to accommodate him, with the result that when he was forced to work full duty, his back condition worsened. He had to take more leave and when the leave expired in October and he attempted to return to work, he was fired.

The employee brought claims against the employer under FEHA for (1) failing to provide reasonable accommodation, (2) failing to engage in an interactive process, (3) disability discrimination, (4) harassment due to his disability, and (5) retaliation. He also sued under CFRA for retaliation, discrimination, and harassment. He also brought claims that he was terminated in violation of California public policy, for declaratory relief, and for punitive damages (among other categories of damages). The employer moved for summary judgment. After noting that the employer did not move for summary judgment on the reasonable accommodation and failure to engage claims under the FEHA, the court proceeded to address the remaining claims.

FEHA retaliation and discrimination. The court denied the employer summary judgment on these claims. It noted that the employee failed to provide direct evidence of discriminatory conduct, so he needed circumstantial evidence, which the court evaluated under the burden shifting framework. The employee had to show for his prima facie case of discrimination that he (1) was a member of a protected class, (2) was qualified for his position, (3) suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive. For his retaliation claim, he had to show he was (1) engaged in protected activity, (2) subject to an adverse employment decision, and (3) there was a causal link between the two.

On the discrimination claim, it was undisputed that the employee was a member of a protected class and suffered an adverse employment action (termination). The court found that he provided sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue that he was qualified for his position with reasonable accommodations provided. He was qualified in the first instance, since he was hired for the position and worked at it before injury. After his initial injury, he returned with a reasonable accommodation, and then returned to full duty at some point (the record was unclear on exactly when). While he took subsequent leaves of absence to deal with his recurring injury, none was an indefinite leave, as he returned to work on and off until July 2021. As the court noted, finite leaves of absence to recover from injuries can be a reasonable accommodation.

A triable issue remained on whether when the employee attempted to return to work after his last finite leave ended in October 2021, he could have done so based on a doctor’s note. Though the employer contended it did not receive notice of the employee’s intent to return to work, the facts surrounding the communications were disputed and could not be resolved on summary judgment.

The court also rejected the employer’s argument that the employee could not show sufficient circumstances to support discriminatory motive, because he did not identify any other employee making a disparaging remark about his disability. Such a showing is not necessary. The employee met his burden with evidence that management was upset with having to accommodate his injury (there were internal emails by managers at the warehouse exhibiting their frustration), they did not respond to his complaints about being forced to return to full duty, and that the employer used the expiration of his leave time to terminate him. And though the evidence was disputed over whether the employee communicated his ability and intent to return to work in October 2021 after his leave expired, a reasonable jury could find that he did communicate that intent and was terminated without an accommodation or engaging in an interactive process. That also constitutes circumstantial evidence of discrimination.

Retaliation. Those same facts supported the employee’s FEHA retaliation claim, the court also held. Pursuing one’s rights for reasonable accommodation and an interactive process under the FEHA constitutes protected activity. And a causal link between his termination and his protected activity can be inferred by the timing alone. The proximity in time between the employee’s request for an accommodation in the form of an extended leave in July 2021, and his termination immediately after his leave expired, raised a dispute of material fact as to the causal link element, the court held.

With the employee having met his burden on his prima facie case, the court turned to whether the employer met its burden to show a credible nondiscriminatory or retaliatory reason for terminating the employee. The court found that the employer met this burden with evidence that the employee’s FEHA leave had expired, and evidence (including his complaints about returning to full duty causing him recurring injury) showing he was not qualified for his position when he was terminated.

Finally, the court found that the employee’s “evidence supporting his overall narrative” sufficed to establish the above-described reasons given were pretextual. That “narrative” was that the employer only begrudgingly offered accommodations to him in 2020, but then shut him off in 2021 and refused to work with him to further identify reasonable accommodations, engage in interactive process with him, or investigate his complaints about being forced to work without accommodation. It then terminated him when his leave expired without engaging in communication.

Harassment. The court granted the employer’s motion and dismissed the FEHA harassment claim. At most, the internal email between managers expressing frustration at having to accommodate him, and comments directly from managers about the difficulty in doing so were “stray remarks” insufficient to support a harassment claim, the court held.

CFRA claims. Unlike the FEHA claims, the employee could not establish the requisite causal link between his CFRA leave and his termination, or that the non-discriminatory reasons given for his termination were pretextual, because the employer granted the employee all the CFRA leave to which he was entitled and allowed him to return to work after every period of such leave.

The case is No. 1:23-cv-00142-KJM-CDB.

Judge: Mueller, K.

Attorneys: Alex K. Hadjian (Licata & Yeremenko) for Mark Juarez. Andrew W. Russell (McGuireWoods) for DG Strategic VII, LLC.

Companies: DG Strategic VII, LLC

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination StateLawClaims Discharge Retaliation EmployeeLeave CaliforniaNews