Gibbs v. American Airlines, Inc.
99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6440, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 554, 74 Cal.App.4th 1 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not liable for denying family and medical leave under CFRA if the employee fails to provide adequate notice of a qualifying serious health condition, and an employee's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on work-related conduct is exclusively remedied by workers' compensation, even if the employer does not explicitly prove workers' compensation insurance coverage at trial, provided the complaint alleges facts indicating work-related injury.
Facts:
- Kathy Gibbs worked at American Airlines, Inc. (American Airlines) from 1989 to 1995 as a service representative in the Admiral’s Club at the San Francisco airport.
- In April 1995, Gibbs was absent from work for several days, reporting flu-like symptoms including fever, blisters on her nose and mouth, chills, and a virus for which she was taking antibiotics, and her doctor advised her to rest.
- Gibbs’s absences continued through April 13 and 14, and she returned to work on Saturday, April 15.
- On April 17, 1995, Gibbs attended a pre-scheduled meeting with her supervisor, Carol Hickey, and General Manager Tryg McCoy, who criticized her performance and attendance and placed her on a 90-day doctor's note requirement due to suspected sick leave abuse.
- During the meeting, Gibbs did not produce a doctor’s note, request medical leave, describe any symptoms of ongoing illness, or appear ill, and she offered to increase her work status to full-time.
- Gibbs resigned on April 20, 1995, three days after the meeting, stating she found it a “no win” situation under Hickey’s supervision.
- In July 1995, almost three months after leaving American Airlines, Gibbs was diagnosed with fibromyalgia; however, her expert witness testified there was no connection between her April 1995 flu-like symptoms and her fibromyalgia.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant Gibbs sued American Airlines in state trial court, alleging unlawful denial of statutory medical leave under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The jury returned a split verdict, finding in favor of American Airlines on the CFRA claim (concluding Gibbs did not give notice of the need for leave) and in favor of Gibbs on the emotional distress claim, awarding compensatory and punitive damages.
- Gibbs moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or to vacate the judgment on the CFRA claim.
- American Airlines moved for JNOV or to vacate the judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
- The trial court denied Gibbs's motion but granted American Airlines' motion, concluding that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy for work-related emotional distress.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does an employee provide sufficient notice of a serious health condition for California Family Rights Act (CFRA) leave by reporting common flu-like symptoms and taking antibiotics, especially when an undiagnosed, more serious condition exists? 2. Is an employer's defense of workers' compensation exclusivity for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim waived if the employer does not affirmatively prove to the jury that it had workers' compensation insurance, when the employee's complaint already alleges a work-related injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Strankman, P. J.
No, an employee does not provide sufficient notice for CFRA leave by reporting common flu-like symptoms, nor is an employer required to prove workers' compensation insurance to a jury when the complaint alleges a work-related injury. The court affirmed the jury's finding that Gibbs failed to provide American Airlines with sufficient notice for CFRA-qualifying leave. CFRA requires employees to provide reasonable advance notice that makes the employer aware of the need for CFRA leave. Simply reporting flu-like symptoms, even with antibiotic treatment and absence for more than three days, does not inherently qualify as notice of a 'serious health condition' under CFRA and FMLA regulations, which specifically exclude common colds and flu. The court reasoned that an employer is not expected to be a diagnostician or clairvoyant to discern an uncommunicated serious condition. Regarding the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the court affirmed the trial court's JNOV in favor of American Airlines, holding that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. California law establishes that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries, including emotional distress, unless the conduct contravenes public policy. Gibbs had previously conceded that her emotional distress claim was 'piggybacked' on her CFRA claim and would be preempted if the CFRA claim failed. The court further clarified that American Airlines was not required to prove workers' compensation insurance to the jury because Gibbs's own complaint contained judicial admissions that her injury arose in the course of employment. Where a complaint affirmatively alleges work-related injury, the employer's compliance with workers' compensation insurance is presumed, and presenting evidence of insurance to the jury could be unduly prejudicial.
Analysis:
This case provides important guidance on both employee notice requirements under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and the scope of workers' compensation exclusivity. It clarifies that employees must actively communicate the seriousness of a health condition to trigger CFRA protections, and employers are not obligated to infer an underlying serious illness from common symptoms. Furthermore, it reinforces the broad application of workers' compensation as the exclusive remedy for work-related emotional distress, establishing that if an injury is alleged to be work-related, the employer is presumed to be covered by workers' compensation, obviating the need for explicit proof of insurance at trial and preventing plaintiffs from bypassing the workers' compensation system through civil claims.
