Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank
85 Cal.App.4th 245, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9699, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 55 (2000)
Rule of Law:
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), an employer has an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate an employee's known mental disability, including preferential reassignment to a vacant position for which the employee is qualified, and must engage in a good-faith interactive process to identify such accommodations, rather than merely allowing the disabled employee to compete equally with other candidates.
Facts:
- Leanne Jensen had a long career in banking, working in various public-facing roles, and became a branch manager with Wells Fargo following a merger in 1996.
- On August 2, 1996, Jensen was the victim of an attempted bank robbery where she was held at gunpoint, threatened with death, tied up, and had her home address discovered by the robbers.
- Following this traumatic event, Jensen developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which, according to her psychiatrist, precluded her from working in a bank branch or in positions involving public interaction and handling money.
- Jensen informed Wells Fargo of her disability and requested accommodation, specifically seeking reassignment to a non-branch position within the company.
- Wells Fargo assigned human resources personnel to assist Jensen, but she reported difficulties obtaining job listings and securing interviews for positions she identified as suitable.
- Jensen applied for multiple non-branch positions, but was not hired, often because the roles went to other candidates with more specific qualifications, more experience, or seniority.
- Jensen communicated certain work restrictions and preferences, such as avoiding sales, public interaction, and specific geographic areas, and also refused a temporary position offered by Wells Fargo.
- Wells Fargo asserted that Jensen's self-imposed restrictions hindered their ability to find a suitable role and that they continued to assist her in her job search.
Procedural Posture:
- Leanne Jensen filed a complaint against Wells Fargo Bank in trial court, alleging violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), discharge in violation of public policy, breach of contract, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
- Wells Fargo Bank moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The trial court granted Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment, finding that Jensen’s Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depression did not substantially limit a major life activity, she was unable to perform the essential functions of her original or alternate jobs, and Wells Fargo had not terminated her and continued to assist her.
- Leanne Jensen appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District.
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 California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by failing to reasonably accommodate an employee with a mental disability if it only offers the employee the opportunity to compete for vacant positions for which they are qualified, rather than providing preferential reassignment, and if there are disputed facts regarding the employee's level of disability and good faith in the interactive process?
Opinions:
Majority - Curry, J.
Yes, an employer can violate the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by failing to reasonably accommodate an employee with a mental disability if it only provides an opportunity to compete for jobs and fails to engage in a good-faith interactive process, especially when there are disputed facts about the disability's extent and the breakdown of communication. The court first clarified that California's FEHA defines disability more broadly than the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requiring only a 'limitation,' not a 'substantial limitation,' on a major life activity, and explicitly includes 'working' as a major life activity (Gov. Code § 12926.1). Wells Fargo failed to establish, as a matter of law, that Jensen’s PTSD did not meet this broader FEHA definition, given her stated symptoms. The court emphasized that an employer's failure to reasonably accommodate is a violation of FEHA in itself, separate from a discrimination claim. Drawing parallels to federal ADA jurisprudence (citing Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc.), the court affirmed that employers have a mandatory obligation to engage in an 'informal, interactive process' with disabled employees to identify suitable accommodations. Crucially, the court held that an employer's offer to merely allow a disabled employee to compete for vacant positions, as Wells Fargo did, is not a reasonable accommodation. Instead, a disabled employee is entitled to preferential consideration for reassignment to a vacant position for which they are qualified. The court found that Wells Fargo failed to meet its burden for summary judgment because there were triable issues of material fact concerning whether a reasonable accommodation was truly offered, whether suitable vacant positions existed within Wells Fargo that were not identified or offered preferentially, and whether the breakdown in the interactive process was attributable to Jensen's alleged non-cooperation or Wells Fargo's insufficient efforts.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies an employer's duties under California's FEHA, distinguishing it from the narrower federal ADA, particularly regarding the definition of 'disability' and the scope of 'reasonable accommodation.' It firmly establishes an employer's affirmative duty to engage in an interactive process with a disabled employee and to provide preferential consideration for reassignment to vacant positions, rather than merely allowing the employee to compete. This ruling increases the burden on employers to proactively identify and offer accommodations, making it harder for them to obtain summary judgment in failure-to-accommodate claims where factual disputes exist about the interactive process or availability of suitable roles. It also highlights California's legislative intent for broader disability protection than federal law.
