Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—E.D. Cal.: Walmart employee, fired after family tragedy, ensuing leave, advances most claims, (May 9, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

There was a tragic and untimely death in her family prior to her leave of absence and ultimate separation.

A former Walmart pharmacy technician, fired following a medical leave after her younger brother shot and killed her elder brother in self-defense in their parents’ home, may proceed with her California Family Rights Act, FEHA, wrongful termination, and rest breaks claims against the retailer but not her payroll and personnel records or punitive damages claims, a federal district court found. Walmart argued that the technician could not show she was terminated because of her leave request or disability, but the company moved forward with the termination while its independent leave administrator was still processing her leave, and a jury could reasonably find that the managers involved “acted with unexplained urgency” (Albornoz v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01229-KJM-CDB (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2025)).

Family tragedy. The events that led to the pharmacy technician’s leave of absence and her ultimate separation from Walmart began in March 2022. Her younger brother shot her elder brother in self- defense in their parents’ home. She was working as a pharmacy technician at a Walmart store in Tehachapi, California at the time. She sent a text message to her supervisor to tell him she would not be coming into work because her brother had died. Later that week, she told the supervisor she needed “a couple more days” to be with her family. He approved that request and asked if she would be back in the pharmacy for her scheduled shift over the weekend, and she said she would not be back until the next week.

Diagnosis. The technician did return to work the next week, and she was suffering from the symptoms of what would later be diagnosed as “adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and grief reaction.” Her healthcare provider advised her not to return to work for a few more days.

Leave of absence. Then, after she saw a therapist, she went on a leave of absence for grief and depression. As required by Walmart’s leave policies, she sent Sedgwick, its leave administrator, a request for a leave of absence on April 18. Sedgwick confirmed it had received her request in a letter, which instructed her to send her healthcare provider a form to complete and return to Sedgwick within 20 days and warned that her leave request would be denied if the form was late. Sedgwick also emphasized that it would not make “a final decision” about her leave request until it received the completed forms from her healthcare provider. Until then, Sedgwick instructed her “to report each scheduled day missed through [her] normal call-in procedures.”

Paperwork not received. She did not formally call in her absences every day, and a few days before the deadline, on May 3, Sedgwick sent her a follow-up letter and text message warning that it had not yet received her paperwork and reminding her about the approaching deadline.

At about this same time, on May 4, Sedgwick sent her supervisor a report about her pending leave request. He forwarded that report to an HR specialist the next day. Although the Sedgwick report stated that the pharmacy technician was “currently” on a leave of absence, the HR specialist believed her leave had ended on May 1, the return date on the doctor’s note she had sent to the supervisor.

“[E]nd of leave letter.” The HR specialist called Sedgwick to ask whether the technician had submitted any medical forms or had requested an “extension,” and Sedgwick reported she had not. After the HR specialist spoke to Sedgwick, she prepared and sent the “end of leave” letter to the technician, stating—as she later admitted was incorrect—that the technician’s leave of absence had ended on May 1. The end-of-leave letter instructed the technician to contact the HR specialist or her supervisor “immediately... to make plans for [her] return to work or to discuss other options that might be available to [her].” The letter warned that if she did not “take action” within three days of her receipt of the letter, she “may be deemed to have voluntarily terminated [her] employment with Walmart.”

Termination discussions. Although the technician denied receiving the letter, there appeared to be no dispute that the HR specialist mailed it, and after the HR specialist received no response, she concluded the technician had not complied with Walmart’s leave policies, and she worked with the supervisor to terminate the technician’s employment.

Move quickly… Walmart did not dispute that the supervisor urged the HR specialist to move quickly and finalize the termination in an email: “[P]lease let me know,” he asked her, “if you have heard from [the pharmacy technician] ASAP. If you haven’t, I’d like to begin the termination process.”

And the record reflected that the HR specialist did move quickly, according to the court. The termination was effective on May 12, the very next day after the supervisor asked the HR specialist to begin the process.

No explicit notice of termination. Aside from the warning in the end-of-leave letter that a failure to respond could be deemed a voluntary termination, Walmart did not inform the pharmacy technician that the company had terminated her employment or why. It did not mail her final paycheck until the next month, and she did not learn she had been terminated until Sedgwick informed her it had closed her request for medical leave.

Lawsuit. The pharmacy technician filed suit a few months after her termination. She alleged discrimination, retaliation, and interference claims under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); wrongful termination in violation of public policy; failure to prevent discrimination; failure to allow rest breaks in violation of the California Labor Code; waiting time penalties for late wages after termination in violation of the California Labor Code; violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and violation of California Labor Code provisions governing payroll and personnel records.

Walmart moved for summary judgment against all claims.

Discrimination and retaliation. The court first observed that the pharmacy technician asserted several similar discrimination and retaliation claims under both the CFRA and the FEHA, claims that are “functionally identical for purposes of the pending motion.” In each, she alleged she was eligible for and entitled to a leave of absence based on her mental health and medical conditions but was terminated because she invoked those rights and had a qualifying “disability.”

Walmart argued that she could not show she was terminated because of her leave request or disability, as required for each of these relevant discrimination and retaliation claims, but the evidence was “conflicting and disputed,” according to the court. The company moved forward with the termination while Sedgwick was still processing her leave request, and a jury could reasonably find that the HR specialist and the technician’s supervisor acted with unexplained urgency: they did not attempt to contact her when she did not respond to the end-of-leave letter, and they did not offer support in completing her leave request with Sedgwick, contrary to instructions in the company’s leadership guide.

And in spite of Walmart’s evidence that it fired her based on her missing medical paperwork, her ongoing absence from the pharmacy without further contact, and her non-compliance with the company’s leave policies, a jury could reasonably conclude that the HR specialist and the supervisor “finalized her termination with needless haste and without full information.”

Reasonable accommodation and interactive process. Similarly, the court found that a jury must decide whether the pharmacy technician or Walmart or both were to blame for the breakdown in their communications concerning an accommodation for her alleged disability and the interactive process. A jury, as the court had previously determined, could find that the employer decided to fire her while Sedgwick was still deciding whether she qualified for medical leave, and it was also unclear whether the employer even knew her medical leave application was incomplete when the HR specialist decided to move forward with her termination.

Rest breaks. The pharmacy technician’s rest breaks claim also survived the employer’s motion. Technicians, she alleged, often worked alone, without support, and if they took a break, the pharmacy might be forced to close temporarily. When this evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as it must be at this stage, concluded the court, it could show that Walmart prevented her from taking rest breaks as a practical matter, contrary to its own formal policy.

Wrongful termination and other derivative claims. Next, the court found that Walmart’s arguments for summary judgment against her wrongful termination, failure to prevent discrimination, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition claims were derivative of its arguments for summary judgment against her other claims. Summary judgment against all these derivative claims was thus denied as well.

Payroll and personnel records. Walmart was, however, entitled to summary judgment against the pharmacy technician’s payroll and personnel records claims. Walmart argued that it had no obligation to respond to her requests for the records after the lawsuit began, that there was no evidence that she authorized her attorneys to send a request on her behalf, and that there was no evidence that Walmart received her request for the records. And in response, she cited no evidence beyond the allegations in her unverified complaint.

Punitive damages. Finally, summary judgment against her punitive damages claim was also appropriate. Because Walmart is a corporation, “punitive damage liability is limited to the actions by managing agents who are defined as ‘employees who exercise substantial independent authority and judgment over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy.’” Here, though the plaintiff argued that her supervisor and the HR specialist did not follow the company’s policies and did not consult the store manager, that evidence would not show that either had substantial discretionary authority in the corporation, but rather that they lacked it.

The case is No. 1:22-cv-01229-KJM-CDB.

Judge: Mueller, K.

Attorneys: Alisa Goukasian (Law Offices of Alisa Goukasian) for Jessica Albornoz. James Taylor Conley (Ogletree Deakins) for Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Companies: Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discharge DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation WageHour StateLawClaims RemediesDamages EvidenceDiscovery CaliforniaNews