Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc.
27 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 966, 213 Cal.App.4th 1331, 153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 367 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee who has exhausted the maximum four-month leave provided under the California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL) may still state a claim for pregnancy discrimination and failure to reasonably accommodate under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as PDLL remedies augment, rather than supplant, the broader protections of FEHA.
Facts:
- Ana G. Fuentes Sanchez was employed by Swissport, Inc. as a cleaning agent from August 2007 until July 14, 2009.
- Around February 27, 2009, Sanchez was diagnosed with a high-risk pregnancy that required bed rest.
- After her diagnosis, Sanchez requested and received a temporary leave of absence from Swissport.
- Swissport had actual knowledge that Sanchez was anticipated to deliver her baby on or about October 19, 2009, and that she needed a leave of absence lasting until she gave birth.
- Swissport afforded Sanchez just over 19 weeks of leave, consisting of her accrued vacation time, California Family Rights Act (CFRA) leave, and Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL) leave.
- On or about July 14, 2009, Swissport terminated Sanchez's employment.
- Sanchez alleged that 'very soon after she was scheduled to give birth, she would have returned to work, with the need for only minimal accommodations, if any, in order to perform the essential function[s] of her job.'
- Sanchez further alleged that Swissport never contacted her to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process to identify available accommodations, such as the extended leave of absence she had requested, before terminating her employment.
- Sanchez alleged that the reasonable accommodations necessitated by her pregnancy and pregnancy-related disabilities would not have created an undue hardship upon Swissport.
Procedural Posture:
- Ana G. Fuentes Sanchez filed a nine-count First Amended Complaint (FAC) against her former employer, Swissport, Inc., in superior court (trial court), alleging causes of action including discrimination based on pregnancy and pregnancy-related disability, failure to accommodate, and retaliation.
- Swissport filed a demurrer to the FAC, contending that all causes of action derived from the underlying claim that Swissport violated FEHA by failing to provide additional leave, and asserted that because it had provided all mandated leave under PDLL and CFRA, it had satisfied all FEHA obligations.
- Sanchez filed an opposition, arguing that she was entitled to reasonable accommodations under FEHA, independent of PDLL and CFRA leave provisions, and that additional leave was a reasonable accommodation.
- The superior court sustained Swissport's demurrer without leave to amend, concluding that Sanchez's termination after her statutorily authorized pregnancy leave expired, and her inability to return to work, was conduct expressly permitted under the Government Code.
- An order dismissing the action was entered by the superior court.
- Sanchez timely appealed this order to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, as the appellant.
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's compliance with the four-month leave maximum under the California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL) satisfy all of its obligations under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), thereby precluding an employee from asserting a FEHA claim for additional reasonable accommodation, such as extended leave, for a pregnancy-related disability?
Opinions:
Majority - Manella, J.
No, an employer's compliance with the four-month leave maximum under the PDLL does not satisfy all its obligations under FEHA, and an employee may assert a FEHA claim for additional reasonable accommodation, such as extended leave, for a pregnancy-related disability. The court reasoned that the plain language of the PDLL clearly states its remedies augment rather than supplant those set forth elsewhere in the FEHA. Specifically, section 12945, subdivision (a) states PDLL is 'in addition to' other provisions, and subdivision (b) mandates that PDLL 'not be construed to affect any other provision of law relating to sex discrimination or pregnancy, or in any way to diminish the coverage of pregnancy... under any other provision of this part, including subdivision (a) of Section 12940.' To interpret PDLL as a cap on leave would diminish FEHA's broader protections for disability discrimination, which allow for reasonable accommodation, including leave of no statutorily fixed duration, provided it does not impose undue hardship. Pregnancy is a form of sex discrimination and pregnancy-related inability to work is a disability for the purposes of FEHA. Therefore, a pregnancy-disabled employee is entitled to the same reasonable accommodation protections as any other disabled employee, which may include leave exceeding four months if it is a reasonable accommodation and does not cause undue hardship. The court distinguished cases like Neisendorf v. Levi Strauss & Co. and Rogers v. County of Los Angeles because they concerned CFRA claims, not PDLL, and did not address whether compliance with one part of FEHA satisfies all others. The court also noted a recently promulgated regulation (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7291.14) reinforcing that PDLL leave is 'separate and distinct' from reasonable accommodation leave under section 12940.
Analysis:
This case is significant because it clarifies that the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL) sets a minimum, not a maximum, for leave related to pregnancy disabilities in California. It firmly establishes that the broader reasonable accommodation provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) apply independently to pregnancy-related disabilities, potentially requiring employers to provide more than the four months of leave mandated by PDLL if such an accommodation is reasonable and does not cause undue hardship. This ruling prevents employers from using PDLL compliance as a shield against FEHA claims and strengthens protections for pregnant employees, aligning pregnancy with other temporary disabilities under FEHA's accommodation framework. It also highlights the importance of the interactive process for identifying accommodations for pregnant employees.
