On February 25, 2013, in Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc., a California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s ruling which dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against her employer, Swissport, for discrimination based on pregnancy and pregnancy-related disability.
Plaintiff was employed as a “cleaning agent” for a year and a half when she sought a temporary leave of absence after she was diagnosed with a high risk pregnancy requiring bed rest. Plaintiff took leave on February 27, 2009, and her “due date” was October 19, 2009. Swissport terminated Plaintiff on July 14, 2009. As of the date of her termination, Plaintiff had exhausted all leave available under Pregnancy Disability Leave (PDL) laws and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).
The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint after it granted Swissport’s pre-trial motion wherein Swissport argued it could not be liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff was afforded the maximum available statutory time off under PDL laws and CFRA. Plaintiff argued on appeal she was entitled to “reasonable accommodations” under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) independent of PDL and CFRA as she would have been able to perform all “essential functions” of her job with “reasonable accommodations.” The Court of Appeal agreed.
In analyzing the FEHA statutory scheme along with the PDL laws, the Court of Appeal emphasized the PDL’s express language that “this section shall not be construed to affect any other provision of law relating to sex discrimination or pregnancy, or in any way to diminish the coverage of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth under any other provision” of FEHA. As such, the Court of Appeal highlighted that that PDL laws imposed additional requirements on employers and that they in no way supplant any other protections afforded under FEHA.
The Court of Appeal further recognized that a “reasonable accommodation” that does not impose undue hardship on the employer must be provided to pregnant employees pursuant to sex and disability discrimination laws within FEHA. The Court of Appeal noted that in certain circumstances disability leave may exceed four months and a leave of absence for a finite period in excess of four months may be deemed a “reasonable accommodation.”
The plain language of the PDL laws makes clear that its remedies augment, rather than supplant, protections and remedies afforded in the FEHA. This case is also a reminder that employers need to be diligent when ensuring compliance with all leave laws which often overlap.
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.