Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—N.D. Cal.: Fired investment trader’s claims can proceed due to fitness exam dispute, (Apr 7, 2026)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

Access to his work account on his phone did not conclusively establish he had returned to work.

Because disputes of material fact existed regarding a company’s request that an employee sit for a fitness-for-duty exam, a federal district court in California denied the company’s motion for partial summary judgment on his FMLA, ADA and state-law disability discrimination claims. There was conflicting evidence as to whether he had been restored to his position prior to the exam request. The company also was not entitled to summary judgment on his federal and state disability discrimination claims because disputes existed about whether he failed to engage in the interactive process (Jamal v. Dodge & Cox, No. 25-cv-01675-HSG (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2026)).

The employee, who suffered from anxiety, worked at Dodge & Cox as a fixed income trader starting in January 2021. From August 25 to September 1, 2023, and again from September 1 to September 29, 2023, he took two medical leaves of absence. His medical provider cleared him to resume work on October 3 or 4. He was able to “check the market” from the work account on his phone from October 4 through 20 and was paid from October 4 onward.

Request for new manager. On October 9, the employee requested a different manager. Via email, the HR representative told him that this reassignment was not possible, but that “we are still open to discussing potential accommodations.” She also asked him for information from his medical provider explaining how his medical condition impaired his ability to do his job and how any proposed accommodation might help him perform that job. In addition, she requested evidence and a report with a timeline of events, which the employee provided.

Zoom call. On October 20, the employee met over Zoom with three of the company’s senior managers to discuss his return to work. He alleged they provoked him on the call, and they alleged he made “many concerning comments.” Based on the call, the HR representative believed he did not have the judgment necessary to perform his duties.

Fitness exam, termination. The next day, the company removed his access to his work accounts and asked him to submit to a fitness-for-duty exam by January 5, 2024. He never agreed to sit for the exam, and, thus, Dodge & Cox terminated him on January 12.

Complaint filed. Thereafter, the employee filed a complaint against Dodge & Cox and his manager. He brought 14 claims against the defendants, including violations of the FMLA, ADA, and disability discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. The company filed this motion for partial summary judgment on his first, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth claims regarding the company’s request that he sit for a fitness-for-duty exam and his request for accommodation.

Returned to work. The court first found that a material dispute existed as to whether the employee had been restored to work prior to Dodge & Cox’s request that he sit for a fitness exam. The parties did not dispute that he was cleared to return to work by October 3 or 4 and that his FMLA leave ended on October 3. They also did not dispute whether he was on “paid leave.”

However, the parties disputed whether he had been “restored” to his “position of employment” or “an equivalent position.” On November 29, 2023, the HR representative wrote to him that the company had allowed him to “stay on paid leave” but “cannot have you sitting on the sidelines indefinitely, nor can we return you to work without a fitness for duty exam.” On December 19, 2023, she again wrote that “we can only continue your paid leave through December 31.” In addition, the employee wrote to her on January 9, 2024, that he was not interested in severance but “should be returned to work.”

The company argued that his discussions with the company’s senior managers regarding his job duties and access to his work account on his phone conclusively established that he had returned to work before the exam request. The court disagreed, finding that a reasonable jury could find these tasks did not reflect that he had been restored to work as defined by the FMLA. Thus, because at least one material dispute existed, the court denied Dodge & Cox’s motion for summary judgment on these claims.

Business necessity. Likewise, Dodge & Cox was not entitled to summary judgment on its claim that it was permitted as a matter of law to require the employee to sit for a fitness-for-duty exam because the exam was justified by business necessity. The court found the company did not meet the Brownfield standard for finding business necessity for seeking the exam. In Brownfield, the Ninth Circuit cautioned that “a minor argument with a coworker or isolated instances of lost temper would likely fall short of establishing business necessity.”

Here, viewing the employee’s comments and behavior as reflected in the record in the light most favorable to him, a reasonable jury could find that there was not a sufficient basis to require the exam. The court found that at least one material dispute of fact existed as to whether the company met the business necessity standard.

Interactive process. Finally, the court found a material dispute of fact also existed as to whether the employee failed to engage in the interactive process. The employee alleged the company failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation for his disability of extreme anxiety. The company argued it was entitled to summary judgment because his request to work under a different manager was per se unreasonable and because he failed to engage in the interactive process.

The court noted the employee had withdrawn these claims to the extent they were based on a failure to accommodate by assigning him to a new manager, but he maintained the claims to the extent they were based on the company’s demand that he sit for a fitness-for-duty exam.

The court found a dispute of material fact existed as to whether liability for the breakdown in the interactive process fell on the employee or Dodge & Cox. The court’s review of the emails between the HR representative and the employee showed the company had not met its ultimate burden of persuasion on a motion for summary judgment. The email correspondence showed that in the weeks after the parties’ October 20 meeting, they negotiated over the parameters of the fitness-for-duty exam and the scope of the medical information that the employee would provide. At no point did the employee completely fail to respond to or engage with the company’s emails. Thus, the court denied Dodge & Cox’s motion for summary judgment on these claims.

The case is No. 25-cv-01675-HSG.

Judge: Gilliam, H., Jr.

Attorneys: David William Affeld (Affeld England & Johnson) for Ahmed Jamal. Katherine V.A. Smith (Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher) for Dodge & Cox and Nicholas Lockwood.

Companies: Dodge & Cox

Cases: Discrimination Discharge EmployeeLeave DisabilityDiscrimination StateLawClaims CaliforniaNews