Brundage v. Hahn
66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 830, 57 Cal. App. 4th 228, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6740 (1997)
Rule of Law:
An employer is not liable for disability discrimination under the ADA or FEHA for terminating an employee due to job abandonment, even if the abandonment was later attributed to an undisclosed mental disability, because the employer lacked knowledge of the disability at the time of termination and is not required to provide 'second chances' as a reasonable accommodation for past misconduct.
Facts:
- Catherine Brundage was employed as a deputy assessor by the County of Los Angeles from June 1988.
- In September 1993, Brundage was diagnosed with manic-depressive (bipolar) disorder but did not inform the County of this diagnosis.
- On November 10, 1993, Brundage's prescribed dosage of Prozac was doubled, which she believed triggered a manic episode.
- Brundage failed to return to work on November 29, 1993, after receiving emergency vacation and the Thanksgiving holiday, effectively disappearing from her job.
- While absent for approximately six weeks, Brundage was in Nevada, 'gambling, eating, talking to people and driving around,' and did not return to her apartment or contact the County, although she did contact her mother at one point.
- On January 1, 1994, Brundage presented herself at a hospital emergency room and was admitted.
- On January 7, 1994, Brundage contacted her supervisor and informed him she was in a mental hospital.
- At a meeting on January 27, 1994, Brundage provided a doctor's letter stating that her bipolar disorder caused her to be in a state of mental confusion for approximately six weeks prior to hospitalization, during which time she was unable to function adaptively or work.
Procedural Posture:
- The County of Los Angeles Office of the Assessor sent Catherine Brundage letters in December 1993, informing her of her deemed resignation due to job abandonment as of November 29, 1993, and outlining procedures for reinstatement if she provided good cause.
- The County denied Brundage's request for reinstatement on April 19, 1994, finding her justification insufficient and her request untimely under applicable civil service rules.
- Brundage's appeal of the denial of reinstatement to the civil service commission was denied.
- Brundage filed an employment discrimination action against the County of Los Angeles Office of the Assessor in trial court, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
- The County moved for summary judgment, contending Brundage could not establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination.
- The trial court granted the County's motion for summary judgment.
- Judgment was entered in favor of the County.
- Brundage filed a timely notice of appeal to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by terminating an employee for job abandonment or denying reinstatement, when the employer was unaware of the employee's mental disability until after termination and the employee requests forgiveness for past conduct rather than a prospective accommodation?
Opinions:
Majority - Grignon, J.
No, an employer does not violate the ADA or FEHA by terminating an employee for job abandonment or denying reinstatement under these circumstances. The court affirmed the summary judgment for the County, concluding that Brundage was terminated for job abandonment, not because of a disability. An employer cannot discriminate 'because of' a disability when the disability is not known to them. Brundage's prior medical leave and general claims of unspecified incapacity were insufficient to impute knowledge of her manic-depressive disorder to the County before her termination. Therefore, the County could not have terminated her 'because of' a disability it was unaware of, citing cases like Taylor v. Principal Financial Group, Inc., Morisky v. Broward County, and Miller v. National Cas. Co. The denial of reinstatement was also not a discriminatory act, but rather an administrative decision upholding a proper termination based on job abandonment, reviewable by administrative mandate, which Brundage did not seek. Furthermore, the court held that reinstatement in this context, effectively excusing past job abandonment, does not constitute a 'reasonable accommodation' under the ADA. 'Reasonable accommodation' aims to enable an employee to perform essential job functions, not to provide a 'second chance' for a failure to control a controllable disability or to forgive past misconduct, as established in Siefken v. Village of Arlington Heights.
Analysis:
This case clarifies crucial limitations on disability discrimination claims under the ADA and FEHA. It firmly establishes that employer knowledge of a disability at the time of an adverse employment action is a prerequisite for a claim of discrimination 'because of' that disability. Furthermore, the ruling limits the scope of 'reasonable accommodation,' indicating that it is typically forward-looking, designed to enable current or future job performance, and generally does not extend to excusing past violations of company policy, such as job abandonment, even if the misconduct is later attributed to an undisclosed disability. This provides employers a strong defense against claims where an employee's disability only comes to light after a legitimate, non-discriminatory termination.
