Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Cal.: Terminated worker’s state-law disability discrimination claims fail, (Jan 5, 2026)

By Steven D. Cole, J.D.

The case could not proceed because the fired worker did not demonstrate that he had a qualifying disability, or that his employer had knowledge of any purported disability.

A federal district court in California granted summary judgment in favor of the employer in a case in which a former warehouse worker alleged violations of California’s Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA). The four disability discrimination claims failed on account of the worker being unable to show that he suffered from a qualifying disability. Even if he had made such a showing, he did not establish that his employer was aware of one, and the record was devoid of any discriminatory intent on the employer’s part. The circumstances of the worker’s termination also fell short of the “extreme and outrageous conduct” necessary to support the worker’s intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim (DeSoto v. Dot Foods, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-1140-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2025)).

The worker was employed from June 14, 2016, to September 25, 2022, at Dot Food, Inc.’s facility in Modesto, California. His final two years of employment were interrupted multiple times by illness, injury, and leaves of absence for, among other things, back pain, head and shoulder injuries, and COVID-19.

Disciplinary infractions. In addition to his physical struggles, the worker also faced several instances of disciplinary action under the employer’s progressive disciplinary policy, which incorporates four sequential steps of corrective action that accrue over one-year periods.

Relevant here, the worker received his first disciplinary step in April 2021 for failing to complete a pre-trip inspection for the fifth time that year; his second step in June 2021 for calling out of work without available sick or personal time; and his third step in October 2021 for again failing to complete a pre-trip inspection. He was warned that a further disciplinary step could result in termination.

Termination. On September 18, 2021, the worker was absent from work. At some point that afternoon or evening, he informed his supervisor that he had been experiencing rib pain and had been in the hospital. The next day, he texted his supervisor a copy of a doctor’s note excusing him from work for four days and permitting a “return to work with no restrictions” thereafter. On account of this incident, the employer issued the worker his fourth and final step of disciplinary action for calling out of work without available sick or personal time and terminated his employment.

FEHA claims. The worker’s complaint alleged the following four FEHA violations: (1) physical disability discrimination under Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a); (2) failure to accommodate physical disability and to engage in an interactive process under Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(m), (n); (3) failure to take all reasonable and necessary steps to prevent discrimination under Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12900 et seq.; and (4) wrongful termination in violation of the public policy against physical discrimination in employment pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 12920. A qualifying disability under FEHA is one that “limits a major life activity,” which includes “working.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 12926.1(c). The regulations specifically exclude “conditions that are mild, which do not limit a major life activity, as determined on a case-by-case basis.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 11065(d)(9)(B).

Qualifying disability. The worker’s allegations fell short of demonstrating that he had a qualifying disability under FEHA when he was terminated. Even if he had made such a showing, the worker still must have proffered evidence of his employer’s knowledge of such disability. He did not, as he merely informed his supervisor that he was experiencing generalized pain, and the doctor’s note conveyed notice of only a temporary ailment. Courts in the Ninth Circuit have consistently recognized that a short-lived condition, supported only by a brief and unspecific doctor’s note, followed by an unrestricted return to work, does not constitute a qualifying disability under FEHA.

Moreover, the record strongly suggested a lack of discriminatory motive or pretext. The employer had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing the worker—repeated violations of established disciplinary and attendance policies. The employer consistently applied its disciplinary policy to these prior violations, and accommodated the worker’s injuries and illnesses on numerous other occasions when the worker properly notified his employer or had accrued time to take off.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress. In addition to the FEHA claims, the worker also alleged an IIED claim based on the “anxiety, humiliation, and disruption to his family life” caused by the termination. But having no awareness of a protected disability, the employer’s conduct amounted to a simple termination, which was insufficient to satisfy the standard for extreme and outrageous conduct upon which an IIED claim must be based. Indeed, the worker’s pleadings and deposition testimony contained nothing to indicate to the court that he suffered from anything other than typical psychological effects following termination.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-01140-WBS-CSK.

Attorneys: Jerome Anthony Clay, Jr. (The Law Office of Jerome A. Clay) for Michael DeSoto. Hillary L. Klein (Husch Blackwell) for Dot Foods, Inc.

Companies: Dot Foods, Inc.

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discharge StateLawClaims TortClaims CaliforniaNews