Disability discrimination and related claims are among the most common causes of action to be filed by employees in California. A new appellate decision, Lin v. Kaiser Foundation (February 24, 2023), https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B314162.PDF illustrates the many issues often at play in cases involving the termination of disabled employees, which make it challenging for employers to obtain summary judgment in these types of lawsuits. In Lin the Court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment finding as to all claims.
Plaintiff Suchin Lin began working at Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“Kaiser”) in 1999, and over the next 19 years, she received several promotions and received only positive performance reviews. In December 2018, Kaiser made the decision to conduct a reduction in force for economic reasons, and 31 employees, including Ms. Lin were selected for layoff.
In January 2019, Ms. Lin fell in the workplace and injured her arm. She took several days off and informed Kaiser that she could not use her arm. She then provided a doctor’s report that placed her on modified duty from January 21, 2019 to February 22, 2019 with restrictions limiting the use of her left arm and requiring Ms. Lin to attend medical and physical therapy appointments. During this time, Kaiser received a request from a worker’s compensation claims examiner to consider a light duty assignment for Ms. Lin. Ms. Lin’s supervisor indicated that they would accommodate this request but failed to follow up with Ms. Linn about it when she returned to work. Thereafter, Ms. Lin’s restrictions were extended through late March 2019.
After her injury, for the first time, Ms. Lin received negative performance feedback based on her slower work turnaround. Ms. Lin testified that she was pressured by her supervisor to work off the clock to make up for the time she fell behind because she could no longer type as quickly. Ms. Lin also alleged that she complained about this to human resources in February 2019. In March 2019, Ms. Lin received a performance evaluation that indicated she needed improvement in certain performance categories. Thereafter, her doctor placed her on a medical leave which was later extended to May 2019. In March 2019, Kaiser made the decision to include Ms. Lin in a layoff along with 16 coworkers.
In reversing the trial court’s summary judgment order, the Court of Appeal determined that on the issue of disability discrimination, a jury could have found that Ms. Lin’s disability played a role in the termination decision for the following reasons:
1. A jury could determine that the original layoff decision in December 2018 before Ms. Lin became disabled was tentative and could have been subject to change. It was relevant that out of the original list of 31 employees who were originally selected for layoff, only 17 were actually laid off. A jury could have determined that had Ms. Lin not become disabled, she could have been one of the employees from the original list who would not have been ultimately selected for layoff.
2. After having a sterling performance evaluation record, it was only after Ms. Lin became disabled that management noted performance deficiencies for the first time and those performance deficiencies were related to limitations caused by her disability, which impacted her typing speed and work turnaround. Kaiser relied on performance related information from January 2019 to March 2019 in making its final decision on who would be selected for the layoff. The evaluations of Ms. Lin’s performance during that time could have been determined by a jury to have been negatively influenced by her injury and need for accommodation.
In finding for Ms. Lin on her retaliation claim, the Court held that “a reasonable jury could find that Kaiser, acting on [Ms. Lin’s supervisor’s] retaliatory animus, terminated Lin’s employment in substantial part because [her supervisor] resented Lin’s accommodation requests—even though Kaiser ultimately granted those requests.”
In finding for Ms. Lin on her failure to provide a reasonable accommodation and failure to engage in the interactive process claims, the Court held that there was evidence from which a jury could determine that Kaiser failed to discuss or provide Ms. Lin with light duty tasks after her health care provider requested this even though Kaiser did provide her with other accommodations.
Engaging in mediation early on in a lawsuit (or even prelitigation) can often provide an efficient and cost-effective method to reaching a resolution in such a case, particularly considering the costs and risk associated with the summary judgment process.
For suggestions on best practices for preparing for a mediation, please click here.
Polina Bernstein has over 21 years of experience as an employment attorney representing both employers and employees and as a mediator who loves resolving disputes. If you are looking for a tenacious, experienced and compassionate employment law mediator, please visit: www.bernsteinmediation.com and email [email protected] to find out about scheduling a mediation.
The above summary has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.