Employers need to keep in mind that if an employee uses all of her allotted leave time under the Family and Medical Leave Act, it does not necessarily follow that she has lost her entitlement toward job protection. In fact, once an employee has exhausted FMLA or employer-provided leave, the employer must assess whether the employee is covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission commissioner Chai Feldblum.
A recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California serves as a reminder that leave and reassignment to a vacant position may be reasonable accommodation under ADA. Moreover, the decision reiterates the risk of not engaging in the ADA interactive process when an employee is unable to return to work after she has reached her FMLA leave limit. The case is Maharaj v. California Bank & Trust, 2012 WL 5828552 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 15, 2012).
Facts of the Case
Sujla Maharaj, a bank teller at California Bank & Trust for nearly 20 years, suffered from rheumatoid arthritis. Her serious health condition created the need for an unpaid leave of absence which lasted for 10 weeks and one day.
After returning to work for five months, Maharaj required a second medical leave, this time for a kidney infection. Her new affliction necessitated a 16-day hospital stay and a planned, medically authorized unpaid leave of absence that totaled more than 12 weeks of treatment and recovery time.
Five weeks into Maharaj’s second leave, CBT notified her that she had exceeded her 12 weeks of leave in a 12-month period under the California Family Rights Act and FMLA. In light of this leave expiration and two months before Maharaj would be clear to return to work without restrictions, CBT told Maharaj that it needed to “begin the process of filling [her] Customer Service Representative position to meet the ongoing demands within the [Sacramento] branch.”
During her recuperation, Maharaj responded to CBT job postings and applied for three other teller positions at three different branches, two of which would have required relocation. Maharaj indicated on the job applications that she was willing to move, but CBT did not offer her either position. CBT instead hired other candidates and chose to formally terminate Maharaj several months later.
CBT claimed in court that Maharaj “was not a qualified individual with a disability” under ADA and/or California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act because she was a person who was “not able to work at all … even when the doctor notes reflected she’d be able to return in the very near future.”
Maharaj countered that she was a qualified individual because she could perform the essential functions of her position with the reasonable accommodation of a finite leave of absence. She also argued that she could “perform the essential functions of … other vacant job[s] within the company … and [that] reasonable accommodations include transfer to a vacant position for which the employee is qualified, absent undue burden to the employer.”
Court Weighs in
The district court agreed with Maharaj and denied summary judgment to CBT on claims alleging disability discrimination under FEHA and ADA, and failure to accommodate and engage in the interactive process under FEHA. The court, however, granted summary judgment to CBT on allegations of CFRA and FMLA violations except for CBT’s failure to rehire Maharaj to the position for which she applied after she received a release to return to work.
The court found that “holding a job open for a disabled employee who needs time to recuperate or heal is in itself a form of reasonable accommodation and may be all that is required where it appears likely that the employee will be able to return to an existing position at some time in the foreseeable future.” (Kranson v. Fed. Exp. Corp., No. 11-cv-05826-YGR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2012))
CBT should have been aware of Maharaj’s disabilities, the court determined, because the branch customer service manager testified that she knew her employee’s health was “quite serious” and that she had a “prolonged hospitalization.” The HR generalist also testified that she was “aware that [Maharaj] had been hospitalized on multiple occasions” and was told that she had “kidney issues.”