• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Cabada Hameed LLP

Employment and Business Litigation Lawyers based in Southern California

  • Attorneys
    • Francisco Cabada
    • Sayema Hameed
  • Practice Areas
    • Employment Law
    • Business Litigation
  • News & Information
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Attorneys
    • Francisco Cabada
    • Sayema Hameed
  • Practice Areas
    • Employment Law
    • Business Litigation
  • News & Information
  • Contact Us
  • Search

Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc.: Pregnant Employee Who Was Fired After Exhausting Pregnancy Disability Leave Stated A Claim For FEHA Employment Discrimination

February 23, 2013 //  by Sayema Hameed//  Leave a Comment

by Sayema Hameed

What happens when a pregnant employee who exhausts all of her vacation time and pregnancy disability leave cannot return to work because she is disabled by a high risk pregnancy?  In the case of Ana G. Fuentes Sanchez, she was fired by her employer, Swissport, Inc., due to her failure to return to work.

Ms. Fuentes Sanchez filed suit against Swissport, alleging pregnancy discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Government Code Section 12900 et seq.  The trial court concluded that she failed to state a claim under FEHA because her employer had given her the maximum leave allowed under the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law, Government Code Section 12945.  The Court of Appeal, however, reversed the trial court, concluding that the plaintiff sufficiently stated a cause of action under FEHA for employment discrimination.  Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (filed February 21, 2013, Second District, Div. Four, Case No. B237761).

In this case of first impression, the Court of Appeal explained that employees who exhaust all of their statutory pregnancy disability leave may nevertheless state a claim for employment discrimination under FEHA because the remedies of the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law are meant to augment, not displace, the remedies available under FEHA.

The statutory leave of four months available under the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law are “in addition to” the remedies set forth in FEHA relating to pregnancy, childbirth, and pregnancy-related medical conditions.  Compliance with the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law, therefore, does not relieve an employer of its obligations under FEHA, including the obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation (which may include leave longer than four months) to an employee disabled by pregnancy, provided that the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.

In this case, Ms. Fuentes Sanchez alleged that Swissport terminated her employment because she was unable to work during her high-risk pregnancy, refused to grant her a reasonable accommodation in the form of allowing her to remain on leave until she gave birth, and fired her in response to her request for such an accommodation.  The Court of Appeal concluded that these allegations were sufficient to state claims for sex and disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the FEHA.

The lesson of this case is that employers do not fulfill their obligations under FEHA by granting the statutory pregnancy disability leave of four months.  Employers who are on notice of an employee’s disability (which includes a pregnancy-related disability) are still required to engage in a good faith, interactive process with that employee to determine if the employer can provide a reasonable accommodation to the employee without undue hardship on the employer.  That reasonable accommodation could be granting the employee an extended leave with a duration longer than four months.

Category: NewsTag: disability discrimination, employment discrimination, FEHA, pregnancy disability leave, pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, sex discrimination, wrongful termination

Previous Post: « California Supreme Court Rules On Mixed Motive Defense in FEHA Employment Discrimination Case: Harris v. City of Santa Monica
Next Post: California Law Regarding Employee Access To Personnel Files »

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Categories

  • News
  • Press
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • May 2022
  • February 2021
  • March 2020
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • June 2019
  • March 2019
  • December 2018
  • December 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • October 2016
  • July 2016
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • February 2014
  • October 2013
  • August 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • September 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2009
  • May 2008

Connect

           

Tags

#MeToo Abercrombie anti-discrimination arbitration arbitration agreement baby bonding California california employment law CFRA coronavirus COVID-19 credit report DFEH disability discrimination DLSE EDD EEOC employee employer employment contract employment discrimination employment law entertainment family medical leave FEHA FMLA gender expression gender identity harassment healthcare hijab independent contractor meal break NLRB paid family leave pandemic pregnancy disability leave religion religious discrimination sex discrimination sexual harassment Sick Leave Law small business social media wrongful termination

Copyright © 2023 Cabada Hameed LLP· · Sitemap · <a href"/disclaimer/" Disclaimer Log in