Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—N.D. Cal.: FEHA claims unavailing for armed guard, fired after extended leave following shoulder injury, (May 30, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The guard provided security for the FDA in San Francisco.

An armed security guard who worked at the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in San Francisco, fired after he took an extended leave of absence for a rotator-cuff tear and then tinnitus, failed to establish a reasonable accommodation, interactive process, disability discrimination, harassment, or retaliation claim under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a federal magistrate judge found. Among other things, the former guard’s employers had honored his FMLA request, given him 90 days of leave pursuant to company policy, granted an additional 90 days of leave beyond company policy, and inquired about further accommodations to help him return to work. And as far as the employers knew, his request was for indefinite leave (Mawari v. Constellis, LLC, No. 23-cv-06029-LB (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2025)).

San Francisco FDA office. Constellis, LLC and its subsidiary Triple Canopy employed the plaintiff as an armed protective security officer from October 2017 to March 2022. The guard provided security for the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in San Francisco, and his role required him to be mentally and physically fit.

Shoulder injury and FMLA leave. In January 2021, he was diagnosed with a right-shoulder rotator-cuff tear and underwent therapy and surgery to remediate the injury. Then in June 2021, he applied for leave under the FMLA.

Leave policies. The employers’ FMLA policy requires employees to contact the HR department for eligibility. HR then evaluates the request and determines whether further documentation is necessary. The FMLA policy allows for 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family and medical reasons within a 12-month period.

The employers also use MetLife to administer short-term disability requests or FMLA leave. MetLife reviews claims and relevant data, makes determinations, and conducts ongoing evaluations regarding the employee’s return to work. MetLife also provides claimants with information regarding claim denial.

Finally, under the defendants’ Personal Leave of Absence Policy, employees can take an additional 90 days of unpaid time off each calendar year.

Initial leave of absence. In June 2021, the guard filed for a leave of absence under the employers’ FMLA policy and sent a doctor’s note to his supervisor. The note did not state a start and end date for his leave, and the supervisor requested an additional doctor’s note providing those dates. The second note, sent on June 17, said he could return to work on December 21.

He submitted a short-term disability claim to MetLife, which advised him that the protected leave would last only 12 weeks. Then, in October 2021, he sent the supervisor a new doctor’s note with a projected return date of February 2022.

Unprotected leave periods. After the FMLA and short-term disability periods expired, the employers gave him two 90-day periods of unprotected and unpaid leave until March 2022. During the second period of unpaid leave, their HR generalist sent him a letter in January 2022 asking when he would return to work. He responded that he intended to return to work and had already provided the doctor’s note with a return date.

Tinnitus and termination. In February, however, the guard was diagnosed with tinnitus. He informed the supervisor and the HR generalist that he was unable to return and did not provide an updated return date. The HR generalist again asked for information regarding his ability to return to work. She requested medical documentation and inquired about alternative accommodations for him.

After determining that he had exhausted all available leave, the employers terminated him but encouraged him to reapply in the future. He did so toward the end of 2022, but they determined that he was ineligible for rehire.

Lawsuit. He sued in Alameda County Superior Court in California, the defendants removed the case to federal district court, and the parties then consented to the jurisdiction of a federal magistrate judge.

Reasonable accommodation. The judge first found that summary judgment against the FEHA reasonable accommodation claim was appropriate. The employers, the court found, honored the guard’s FMLA leave, gave him 90 days of leave pursuant to company policy, granted an additional 90 days of leave beyond company policy, and inquired about further accommodations to help him return to work. He argued that he should have received more time off pursuant to his February message—which said that he was unable to work due to tinnitus and other issues—but, as far as the employers knew, the request was for indefinite leave, which is not a reasonable accommodation under the FEHA. It was undisputed, the court noted, that the guard did not provide Constellis with a doctor’s note or return date but instead provided that information to MetLife. All available evidence indicated that the employers cannot access MetLife records and never learned of the return date sent there.

Interactive process. The guard’s interactive process claim failed because the issue was whether the defendants failed to engage in the interactive process, and all evidence “indicates that the plaintiff stopped engaging,” concluded the court.

Disability discrimination. His disability discrimination claim failed because it fell within the underlying accommodation claim, according to the court. This claim was predicated on the employers’ alleged failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and the reasonable accommodation claim failed.

FEHA harassment. Summary judgment was appropriate against the FEHA harassment claim because “no reasonable jury could find severe harassment on this record,” concluded the court. The only evidence of harassment the plaintiff identified was emails from Constellis personnel. He argued that these messages falsely suggested that he was not communicating with Constellis and threatened termination. Even if this was true, however, the emails did not evince severe harassment, according to the court. If anything, they showed Constellis’s efforts to engage in the interactive process and to provide reasonable accommodations.

Retaliation. The guard also identified no evidence of retaliation, according to the court. Assuming, arguendo, that the alleged retaliation was his termination, he still provided no evidence of causation.

Derivative claims. Finally, the guard’s derivative claims—for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and violation of the state Business and Professional Code rested on the same evidence as his FEHS claims. Because there was no genuine dispute of material fact on the underlying issues of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, the court found, these derivative claims also failed as a matter of law.

The case is No. 23-cv-06029-LB.

Judge: Beeler, L.

Attorneys: Brian Ira Vogel (Law Offices of Brian Ira Vogel) for Ibrahim Mawari. Veena Bhatia (Jackson Lewis) for Constellis, LLC.

Companies: Constellis, LLC

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discharge DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation CaliforniaNews