In Richey v. AutoNation, Inc., filed November 13, 2012, the California Court of Appeal’s Second District held that an employer may not deny reinstatement to an employee on medical leave based on the employer’s honest belief that the employee worked somewhere else during his or her leave. The decision reinforces the objective of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) to provide for and protect the rights of employees.
Richey was terminated from his job four weeks before the expiration of his approved medical leave under CFRA (Government Code, ยงยง 12945.1, 12945.2) because his employer believed he was abusing his leave by working in his family owned seafood restaurant.
The appellate court in Richey held that the honest belief defense violated an employee’s statutory right to job reinstatement under CFRA (Government Code sections 12945.1 and 12945.2). The Richey court noted that the honest belief or honest suspicion defense has been rejected by most federal jurisdictions and by California courts, primarily because the defense improperly imposes the burden of proof on the employee rather than the employer. The appellate court emphasized that, where an employer defends against a claim for interference with an employee’s substantive rights to protected medical leave, the employer must demonstrate “a legitimate reason to deny [the] employee reinstatement.”
The court expounded that not only would the permission of an honest belief defense improperly shift the burden to employees, but it would also encourage employer ignorance of both the law and facts relating to an employee’s CFRA leave. Relying on the California Supreme Court case of Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central, 43 Cal.4th 201 (2008), the court also held that an employer “must demonstrate evidentiary facts sufficient to carry the burden of proof imposed by CFRA and FMLA.”
In other words, an employer must “adequately investigat[e] and develop[] sufficient facts to establish the employee had actually engaged in misconduct warranting dismissal.”
This document is intended to provide you with information about employment law related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.