Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Cal.: Leave would not have been reasonable accommodation for employee with back pain, (Apr 8, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

In 2020, the employee began a leave of absence that was repeatedly extended, and she did not ultimately return to work.

A further extension of a Leprino Foods employee’s leave of absence would not have been a reasonable accommodation for her back pain under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the employer was accordingly entitled to summary judgment against her claims, a federal district court in California found. Although “a finite leave can be a reasonable accommodation under FEHA, provided it is likely that at the end of the leave, the employee would be able to perform his or her duties,” the FEHA does not demand that employers “wait indefinitely for an employee’s medical condition to be corrected.” At the time the employee made her last request, no evidence showed that an additional extension could permit her to recover and return to work, and no evidence showed this extension request would in fact be the last (Rosado v. Leprino Foods Co., No. 2:22-cv-02302-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2025)).

Car crashes and first leaves of absence. The employee began working for Leprino Foods in 2015. She went on leaves of absence several times between 2016 and 2020, often as a result of injuries she suffered in two car crashes in 2017 and 2018, and she returned to work after each such leave.

Leave for back pain. In 2020, however, she began a leave of absence that was repeatedly extended, and she did not ultimately return to work. First, in July 2020, Leprino approved her request for medical leave based on her chiropractor’s opinion that her back pain would prevent her from working until August 7. The leave was subsequently extended several times.

Another extension. But again in July 2021, she requested an extension, this time for six months, based on her nurse practitioner’s anticipation that she “will be able to return to work full time” by December 2021. At this point, Leprino had granted five extensions, and what had begun as a one-month period of leave had become a year away from the job.

Medical leave exhausted. The employee also had exhausted her right to medical leave under her union’s labor contract, as well as her leave under the FMLA and California Family Rights Act.

No other accommodation request. The employee also never requested or proposed any accommodation other than a leave of absence. The employer asked her to have her doctor complete a questionnaire so it could decide if only that accommodation—an extended leave of absence—would be reasonable, or whether there was another option. In response, her nurse practitioner explained that the employee was “unable to stand independently and uses a wheelchair” and had “severe pain.” She was “unable to perform any of the functions of her work.” As for potential accommodations, the answer was unequivocal: “No accommodations” were possible. And this would continue to be true for six more months.

Leave not extended. The employer received the completed questionnaire on July 23. Seven days later, it wrote to the employee that it could not extend her leave. “Based on our recent discussion,” it wrote, “it is not plausible that extending your leave of absence any further will facilitate your return to work.” She would be terminated, but she could apply for an open position if she recovered.

The employee forwarded a revised questionnaire in which the same nurse practitioner used more definitive language to explain when the employee could return to work. The nurse practitioner had previously written, “We anticipate [the employee] will be able to return to work on 12/14/21.” She now wrote that the employee “will be able to return to work on 12/14/21.”

Termination. Leprino, however, did not reconsider its decision. It finalized her termination on August 6, 2021.

Approved… Several months later, in January 2022, the employee sent the employer a note from a doctor at the UCSF Medical Center, who wrote that she had been under her care and could now return to work. There is no evidence to indicate whether the employee applied again or whether Leprino considered rehiring her, said the court.

Lawsuit. The employee brought seven claims under state law, alleging disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, retaliatory termination in violation of the FEHA, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA, failure to engage in the interactive process required by the FEHA, failure to prevent disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and termination in retaliation for taking leave guaranteed by the California Family Rights Act.

The parties completed discovery, and Leprino moved for summary judgment.

“Reasonable accommodation”? The court found that Leprino’s motion “boils down to a single question: would a further extension to [the employee’s] leave of absence have been a ‘reasonable accommodation” under the FEHA?’” The court found that it would not have.

A leave of absence can be a reasonable accommodation in some cases, observed the court, and California courts have held that “a finite leave can be a reasonable accommodation under FEHA, provided it is likely that at the end of the leave, the employee would be able to perform his or her duties.”

However, the FEHA does not demand employers “wait indefinitely for an employee’s medical condition to be corrected.” And that was the problem here. “In short,” observed the court, “at the time [the former employee] made her last request, no evidence showed an additional extension could permit her to recover and return to work, and no evidence showed this extension request would in fact be the last.”

No retaliation. Finally, the employee cited no evidence that could permit a jury to find that Leprino was retaliating against her because she had requested leave or was taking leave. Leprino granted all her requests for leave except the last, and it was undisputed she could not perform her essential job duties when Leprino finally fired her. “And after a year of leave, nothing suggested a further six-month extension would help [her] regain her ability to work.” Leprino also invited her to apply again when she could. “The only conclusion to draw from this record,” said the court, “is that Leprino terminated [her] employment because she could not perform her job duties and because no accommodation—other than an indefinite leave of absence—was available.”

The case is No. 2:22-cv-02302-KJM-CKD.

Judge: Mueller, K.

Attorneys: Anthony Nguyen (Shegerian & Associates) for Gina Rosado. Alexa Galloway (Hanson Bridgett) for Leprino Foods Co.

Companies: Leprino Foods Co.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination EmployeeLeave Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims CaliforniaNews