Wysinger v. Automobile Club
157 Cal. App. 4th 413, 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 20 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 56 (2007)
Rule of Law:
Under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), an employer's failure to engage in a good faith interactive process to determine reasonable accommodation for an employee's disability is an independent cause of action distinct from the claim of failing to provide a reasonable accommodation, and a jury's findings on these two claims are not inconsistent. Furthermore, a pattern of adverse employment actions, the totality of which impairs an employee's job performance or prospects for advancement, can constitute unlawful retaliation under FEHA.
Facts:
- Guy Wysinger worked for the Automobile Club of Southern California (ACSC) as a district manager for 25 years, consistently receiving favorable performance evaluations.
- Wysinger suffered from lupus, a heart condition, and rheumatoid arthritis, which were aggravated by his daily commute to his Santa Barbara office.
- Wysinger wanted to be ACSC’s Ventura office manager because it would involve a less arduous commute and would be a promotion.
- In the late 1990s, ACSC planned a new compensation plan, which older office managers, including Wysinger, opposed due to disproportionate pay reductions.
- Robert Kane, ACSC’s vice-president, told Wysinger they would 'crush' those opposing the plan and told another manager that past service wouldn't matter and employees could 'die at your desk'.
- In 1999, Wysinger filed an age discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against ACSC, after which ACSC did not impose the planned pay cuts.
- Following his EEOC complaint, Wysinger's work environment deteriorated: he was no longer invited to management committees or to apply for management positions, was treated coldly, ignored at meetings, and received unfavorable job evaluations.
- In 2002, when the Ventura office manager position opened, Wysinger's immediate supervisor, Bill Figge, recommended him as most qualified; however, ACSC senior vice-president Peter McDonald ultimately approved Kane's recommendation of Grant Sigmund, who had not even applied for the position.
- Wysinger made six to twelve requests to his immediate supervisor for accommodation due to his health problems, and his doctor wrote to ACSC in 2002, but ACSC’s human resources department did not respond to any of these requests.
Procedural Posture:
- Guy Wysinger filed a discrimination action against his former employer, Automobile Club of Southern California (ACSC).
- A jury trial was held, resulting in a special verdict finding ACSC liable for retaliating against Wysinger and failing to engage in an interactive process regarding his disability.
- The jury also found ACSC not liable for failing to provide a required reasonable accommodation to Wysinger for his physical disability.
- The jury awarded Wysinger economic and non-economic damages, and found ACSC’s conduct malicious, oppressive, and/or fraudulent, leading to a punitive damages award.
- ACSC moved for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- ACSC appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are a jury's findings that an employer failed to engage in an interactive process to determine reasonable accommodation for an employee's disability, but did not fail to provide a required reasonable accommodation, legally inconsistent under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Gilbert, P. J.
No, a jury's finding that an employer failed to engage in an interactive process regarding an employee's disability is not inconsistent with a finding that the employer did not fail to provide a required reasonable accommodation, as these are separate causes of action under FEHA. Under FEHA (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (n)), an employer must engage in a good faith interactive process with a disabled employee to explore alternatives for accommodation. Failure to engage in this process is an independent violation distinct from an employer's failure to provide a reasonable disability accommodation (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (m)). The interactive process serves to determine which accommodation is required. Thus, the jury could reasonably find that no failure to provide a 'required' accommodation occurred because the process to determine such an accommodation was obstructed by ACSC's refusal to engage. The court emphasized that California FEHA provides broader protections than the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as FEHA explicitly allows an independent cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive process, unlike the ADA which typically requires proof that a reasonable accommodation could have been made. The court also affirmed the jury's finding of retaliation, concluding that a pattern of conduct, including denying Wysinger a promotion to the Ventura office, undeserved negative job reviews, reductions in staff, ignoring health concerns, and other acts that caused substantial psychological harm, constituted adverse employment action under FEHA. These actions, viewed collectively, impaired Wysinger’s job performance and prospects for advancement, and were causally connected to his earlier EEOC complaint despite the time lapse, due to the intervening pattern of retaliatory conduct. Robert Kane, as Vice-President of district office operations, was deemed a managing agent whose retaliatory animus could be imputed to ACSC, supporting the award of punitive damages. The punitive damages award was also found proportionate to the compensatory damages and ACSC's financial position.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the distinct nature of two employer duties under California's FEHA: the duty to engage in an 'interactive process' and the duty to 'reasonably accommodate.' By affirming that the failure to participate in the interactive process is an independent cause of action, the ruling expands protections for disabled employees, ensuring that employers cannot escape liability by arguing that no accommodation was ever identified if they themselves prevented the collaborative process from occurring. Furthermore, the court reinforced a broad interpretation of 'adverse employment action' for retaliation claims, allowing a pattern of individually minor but collectively impactful actions to form the basis of a claim, thereby protecting employees from subtle, yet pervasive, forms of employer reprisal.
