Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—N.D. Cal.: Costco employee with work restrictions due to Graves’ Disease advances FEHA claims, (Jan 20, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The employee contended that she could only work the “lower” cash registers due to her medical condition.

A Costco front end cashier who was, due to her Graves’ Disease, limited to working on only two registers where she could have a fan can proceed to trial on her various Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) disability discrimination and retaliation claims, a federal district court in California held. Denying in large part Costco’s motion for summary judgment, the court found fact disputes as to whether working all registers was an essential function of her job, whether Costco permitted her to perform essential functions such as cart retrieval without her accommodations, and whether it treated her request for accommodation differently at different times (Ruch v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 24-cv-05410-TSH (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2026)).

Accommodation requests. Diagnosed with Graves’ Disease in 2022, the employee suffered from shortness of breath, leg cramps, incontinence, and problems with temperature, energy, and motivation, as well as depression. In January 2023, she requested and was provided with a personal fan to use at her register. In July, she submitted a doctor’s note stating that she required a personal fan and a cool environment, that she should not be exposed to temperature over 72 degrees, and that she needed to be on “lower register[s] due to mental health issues,” which she explained meant she could only work on registers 4 and 5.

Costco permitted her to work on those registers while clarifying her permanent restrictions. In August, it determined that permitting her to work only on registers 4 and 5 was unworkable because it needed to have front end cashiers work on different cash registers throughout the day. It offered her a temporary reassignment to front end cashier assistant, which she refused.

Personal leave of absence. After the employee’s doctor stated in August 2023 that there were no accommodations Costco could provide that would allow the employee to work on higher registers, Costco placed her on a personal leave of absence, which she characterized as involuntary. Her doctor later stated that she needed permanent access to a fan and cool environment and needed to be placed “at the registers that are located under/near the large overhead fans as well as supplied with a personal fan that sits on her register.” The doctor also stated that she was “capable of maintaining the workflow demands and has no restrictions related to fulfilling work tasks.”

In September 2023, the employee provided Costco with a “return to regular work” note that did not list written restrictions. While Costo believed the note cleared the employee to work without any restrictions, she contended that her prior restrictions were still in place. She briefly returned to work but was placed back on a leave of absence.

The parties continued to dispute whether the employee could perform the essential functions of her job. In November 2023, Costco sent her information about positions available for reassignment and by September 2024, it had offered her more than 25 jobs. Also in September, the employee provided an updated workplace restrictions form that Costco again argued removed the restriction to work only registers 4 and 5. When she returned to work, Costco provided her with a personal fan. In October, the employee was placed on a workers’ compensation related leave after injuring herself at work.

Medical condition discrimination. In response to the employee’s FEHA medical condition discrimination claim, Costco argued that the essential functions of her position include “working self-checkout” and working “on registers beyond 4 and 5.” Finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that working on all registers was not an essential function of the employee’s front end cashier position and thus that she was able to perform her job’s essential functions, the court noted that despite Costco’s job analysis stating that self-check duties comprise 37.5 percent and 18.74 percent of an employee’s day, the employee testified that she was assigned to self-check only twice in a three-year period of time prior to requesting accommodations.

She also testified that only certain people were assigned to self-check and that some people were regularly assigned to certain registers without having to rotate around. This was evidence that incumbents were not required to work on all registers or on self-check, said the court, finding a fact dispute regarding what duties were essential functions and whether the employee could perform the essential functions of her position.

Adverse employment action. Rejecting next Costco’s contention the employee was not subjected to an adverse employment action, the court noted that she claimed she was involuntarily placed on personal leave on two occasions, which could qualify as an adverse employment action. Costco claimed it placed her on leave because she could not perform the essential functions of her job—working beyond registers 4 and 5—and not because of her disability, and that it offered the leaves as a reasonable accommodation because she had rejected all alternative positions it had offered.

But reassignment, said the court, is only a reasonable accommodation where the employee cannot be accommodated in their current position and a leave of absence is only a reasonable accommodation where reassignment is not feasible. And here, the court observed, if working on all registers was not an essential function of the employee’s job, then reassignment and leave were unnecessary, and a reasonable jury could find that Costco placed her on leave because of her disability. Thus, the employee established a prima facie case of discrimination.

Pretext. Further, said the court, a reasonable jury could find Costco’s actions were based on a discriminatory motive. If a jury were to find that working all registers was not an essential function, then it could find that Costco’s asserted justification was false. Costco claimed that when the employee said she could work at self-check without a fan, it could not allow her to do so because it was not “lawfully allowed” to permit her to work beyond her medical restrictions. The employee, however, provided evidence that in 2023, she performed cart return duties, which were listed as an essential function in the job analysis, with no fan, and Costco did not indicate that it was a problem, which was sufficient to cast doubt on Costo’s affirmative defense. Based on all this, the court denied summary judgment on the employee’s medical condition discrimination claim.

Failure to accommodate. Nor was Costco entitled to summary judgment on the employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim, said the court, finding a fact dispute regarding whether working on all registers was an essential function. If not, “then Costco cannot lean on its argument that it had to eliminate essential functions to provide [the employee] with accommodations in her Front End Cashier position.”

As to Costco’s assertion it offered the employee reassignment as a reasonable accommodation, there was no dispute she could work on registers 4 and 5 with her temperature accommodations. Thus, the court stated, Costco’s argument was again dependent on whether working on all registers was an essential function as there was no need to reassign the employee if she could perform the essential functions with accommodations. Accordingly, this claim also advanced.

Retaliation. Finally, turning to the employee’s retaliation claim, the court noted that she was placed on involuntary leave after she requested accommodation consistent with her medical restrictions. Further, said the court, a reasonable jury could find a causal link between her protected activity and the adverse action. It was undisputed the employee engaged in the protected activity of requesting disability accommodations and that Costco was aware of these requests; the imposed leaves of absence could qualify as adverse employment actions; she requested accommodations in July 2023 and Costco ended her temporary assignment early and placed her on leave in August 2023 and again between September 2023 and September 2024. Based on this evidence, a jury could find she engaged in protected activities, that Costco was aware of the protected activities, and that the adverse actions followed within a relatively short time thereafter; this is sufficient to establish causation. As a result, the court denied summary judgment against this claim as well.

Judge Hixson, T.

The case is No. 24-cv-05410-TSH.

Attorneys: Emanuel M. Starr (Frontier Law Center) for Carol Ann Ruch. Justin Taylor Curley (Seyfarth Shaw) for Costco Wholesale Corp.

Companies: Costco Wholesale Corporation

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination StateLawClaims CaliforniaNews