According to a press release by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), United Parcel Service (UPS) must pay more than $96,000 in damages after the company fired an employee because of her disability.  The Fair Employment and Housing Commission (Commission) determined that UPS had unlawfully terminated their worker, Eva Linda Mason, in spite of the fact she was able to perform the essential functions of her job.  Ms. Mason began her employment with UPS in 1997 and, although she occasionally located packages in a warehouse, handling packages was not part of her job.  After Ms. Mason had knee surgery and took a leave of absence to recover in 2007, she continued to carry out the essential customer service functions of her job.  Nonetheless, UPS considered Ms. Mason as disabled because she had some restrictions, such as limited standing, walking, bending, and kneeling.  Because the company had a 12- month cap on the length of time employees with disabilities could be reasonably accommodated from their regular duties. UPS fired Ms. Mason in August 2008.  The Commission found this arbitrary limit of 12 months was unlawful, and ordered UPS to pay just over $96,000.00 in damages, which included a $10,000.00 administrative fine to the State.

See the DFEH press release HERE.

Under California law, where an employer draws distinctions among their employees on the basis of physical or mental disability the law is not violated by that fact alone.  Rather, drawing these distinctions is prohibited only if the adverse employment action occurs because of a disability and the disability would not prevent the employee from performing the essential duties of the job, at least not with reasonable accommodation.  In order to establish that a defendant employer has discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the FEHA, the plaintiff employee bears the burden of proving he or she was able to do the job, with or without reasonable accommodation.  Where an employee cannot perform the essential functions of their job even with reasonable accommodation, an employer may terminate the employee.  However, in the case above, UPS did not terminate their employee for not being able to perform her job, but fired her simply because their "one-year" limit on the accommodation had been reached.  This was unlawful.

Compensation for victims of wrongful termination should be an important concern for all Californians. When a business terminates their employee because of a disability, the fired employes should be compensated. An Orange County trial lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you been a victim of a wrongful termination?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Earlier this month, the Sixth District Court of Appeals rendered a decision in a sexual harassment/discrimination case involving a worker at a halfway house in Monterey County.  The decision is interesting and important in that is sets forth the difference in two particular theories of sexual discrimination, disparate treatment and disparate impact.

In the Court of Appeals case, the female worker sued her former employer on, among other theories, one of sexual discrimination.  The trial court elected to instruct the jury on only a disparate impact theory, because the employer's practice that allegedly violated the law was on its face gender neutral and did not single out women.  In short, the practice of the employer was to require only same sex administration of urinalysis testing, and the employer (because of budget constraints) had to limit the night shift to just one employee.  Consequently, women could no longer work the night shift because the residents of the halfway house were men, and only a male employee could administer the urinalysis testing.  Since the female plaintiff was not permitted to work the only shift she had worked in the past (the night shift), she was terminated once her shift had to be limited to just one employee.

In reaching their decision, the appellate court described the difference in the two theories of sexual discrimination as follows:

Disparate treatment and disparate impact are different theories of discrimination, requiring different proof. “ ‘Disparate treatment’ is intentional discrimination against one or more persons on prohibited grounds.  Prohibited discrimination may also be found on a theory of ‘disparate impact,’ i.e., that regardless of motive, a facially neutral employer practice or policy, bearing no manifest relationship to job requirements, in fact had a disproportionate adverse effect on members of the protected class.

In this recent case, the employer's practice of same sex testing was not found by the jury to have a disparate impact on women, and the appellate court agreed the trial court had done the right thing in instructing the jury on only the disparate impact theory.  The simple rule in disparate impact claims is that the plaintiff must prove the class to which he or she belongs (their sex) is unfairly treated by a gender neutral policy.  Here, the only impact was on women who wished to work the night shift.  This limitation did bear relationship to job requirements (same sex urinalysis testing) and was apparently compelled by budget constraints.  Had the practice discriminated against all female employees (and not just those who wanted to work the night shift) the outcome may well have been different.

Compensation for the victims of sexual harassment should be an important concern for all Californians.  When an employee suffers discrimination in the workplace, the employer should be held accountable.  An Orange County sexual discrimination attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 19 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you been a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace?

• This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.