Reminder of High Consequences in ADA Cases
The California Court of Appeal for the Fifth District rendered an opinion yesterday that should serve as a reminder to all employers of the high consequences of making missteps when addressing disability issues in the workplace. In the case, a deputy in the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department sued the County claiming disability discrimination. The claim was based upon the fact that the County placed the deputy on a leave of absence after concluding that he could not perform the duties as a bailiff even with reasonable accommodations. The case went through two trials after which the judgment was entered in favor of the County. The deputy appealed the judgment arguing that the jury instructions were flawed.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the deputy that the jury instruction given by the trial court was flawed. The trial court believed that in order for the deputy to prevail on his disability discrimination claim, he was required to prove that the employer had animus or ill will toward the employee. Accordingly, the trial court altered the pattern jury instruction on the issue.
The Court of Appeal pointed to the California Supreme Court case of Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203 as definitive authority that a plaintiff need not prove any animus or ill on the part of the employer. Rather, the standard is akin to a strict liability standard. The Court of Appeal explained it as follows:
California law does not require an employee with an actual or perceived disability to prove that the employer’s adverse employment action was motivated by animosity or ill will against the employee. Instead, California’s statutory scheme protects employees from an employer’s erroneous or mistaken beliefs about the employee’s physical condition. In short, the Legislature decided that the financial consequences of an employer’s mistaken belief that an employee is unable to safely perform a job’s essential functions should be borne by the employer, not the employee, even if the employer’s mistake was reasonable and made in good faith. [citation omitted]
Because the employer bears the burden of any mistake under the disability discrimination law, employers will be wise to make sure mistakes are not made. And, mistakes are easy to make, particularly where an employer does not have extensive knowledge of the law and experience in handling disability issues.
The appellate decision can be found at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F068068.PDF