(Decision immediately above in adobe format for this week’s blog entry)
Gavina v. Amazon.com-Word version
(word version of case immediately above)
I hope everyone is having a great holiday season. The way it looks for me is I believe I’m going to get two blog entries up this week and then possibly take a break until after New Year’s as my daughter will be coming home for three weeks for Christmas break. The first blog entry of the week is going to be substantive, while the second blog entry of the week will be the greatest hits for 2024. Unless something changes in the next few days, you will see five entries drop out of the greatest hits from last year and four new ones come in.
The case of the day comes out of California and is Gavina v. Amazon.com Services LLC, a denial of a motion to dismiss decided by the United States District Court for the Central District of California on December 4, 2024. The case is not an ADA case at all but rather arises under California law. Since California law and the ADA track closely each other in that a violation of the ADA automatically violates California law (FEHA), the case is nevertheless instructive. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: facts; court’s discussion of why plaintiff is a qualified individual; court’s discussion of why plaintiff’s failure to reasonably accommodate claims can go forward; court’s discussion of why the failure of Amazon to engage in the interactive process claim can go forward; court’s discussion of why plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim can go forward; and thoughts/takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.
I
Facts
Plaintiff met with Amazon representatives at a job fair, alerted them to his medical condition (cerebral palsy), and later received an offer letter for an unspecified job. When he showed up for work on his first day, he learned that he was assigned to a warehousing position. After performing the job for a month, plaintiff asserted that he was forced to go on medical leave at a 45% reduction in pay, and subsequently terminated for absence violations. He brought suit alleging violations of several different provisions of California law pertaining to disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to accommodate.
II
Court’s Discussion of Why Plaintiff Is A Qualified Individual
- A qualified individual is one that is able to perform the essential duties of the position that is sought or held with or without reasonable accommodations.
- Defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to plead this because the plaintiff did not identify what other jobs were available that the plaintiff could perform with or without reasonable accommodations. The court called this argument a strawman for two reasons. First, plaintiff’s claim does not depend on a hypothetical human resources position because plaintiff had alleged that he was capable of performing the position he had by doing so for over a month. Second, plaintiff alleged that he could perform the essential functions of that job long term with reasonable accommodations to alleviate his physical limitations.
III
Court’s Discussion of Why Plaintiff’s Failure To Reasonably Accommodate Claims Can Go Forward
- A reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment to the work environment that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job the employee holds.
- Once Amazon was made aware of plaintiff’s disability, it had the burden to take positive (emphasis in opinion), steps to accommodate the employee’s limitations.
- The law is against the argument that the leave of absence itself is a reasonable accommodation.
- While it is true that providing a leave of absence may be a reasonable accommodation where an employee can no longer perform the essential functions of the job, that only works if it is likely that the leave is effective in allowing the employee to return to work at the end of the leave, with or without further reasonable accommodations.
- The court noted in a footnote that a leave of absence would not change anything with respect to plaintiff’s disability. So, the cases talking about a leave of absence being a reasonable accommodation are not applicable.
- Plaintiff alleged that Amazon made no effort whatsoever to accommodate the plaintiff’s work tasks in order to allow him to continue in his position.
- In a footnote, the court noted that Amazon argued that it was relieved from the affirmative duty to search for a vacant position because there were no vacant positions available. However, that is a question for summary judgment and not on a motion to dismiss. At summary judgment, Amazon will have an opportunity to introduce evidence that there were no vacant positions that plaintiff was qualified for.
IV
Court’s Discussion of Why the Failure of Amazon to Engage In The Interactive Process Claim Can Go Forward
- Under the FEHA, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee in order to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition.
- FEHA obliges employers to continuously engage in communication in good faith exploration of possible accommodations between employers and individual employees with the goal of identifying the accommodation that allows the employee to perform his job effectively.
- At the pleading stage, plaintiff is not required to identify a specific reasonable accommodation that would have been available at the time the interactive process should have occurred because employees do not have at their disposal the extensive information concerning possible alternative positions or possible accommodations that employers have.
- In cases where some interactive processes alleged, the Court’s ultimate role is to isolate the cause of the breakdown in the interactive process and then assign responsibility.
- Whether Amazon fulfilled its duty with respect to the interactive process is a factual question requiring more than just box checking.
- The duty to engage in the interactive process is a continuing duty and the fact that the employer took some steps to identify a reasonable accommodation does not absolve the employer of liability for failing to engage in the interactive process if it is responsible for a later breakdown in the process.
- Plaintiff alleged that he Amazon apprised of his disability through regular notes from his physician and after months of no accommodations, asked that his request be elevated. Plaintiff further asserted that despite all of this communication on his end, Amazon informed him that they were coming to an end on the job search despite little if no activity. In other words, Amazon is alleged to have broken an almost year long silence only to inform the plaintiff that he was out of leave, and proceeded to terminate him a week later.
V
Court’s Discussion of Why Plaintiff’s Disability Discrimination Claim Can Go Forward
- Establishing a prima facie case of disability discrimination means a plaintiff has to show: 1) plaintiff suffers from a disability; 2) plaintiff is a qualified individual; and 3) plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability.
- An adverse employment action is an action that materially affects terms and conditions of employment, with that term being construed liberally in order to afford employees appropriate and generous protection against employment discrimination.
- The disability need not be the but for cause of the adverse employment action, but must be a substantial factor motivating it.
- Plaintiff need only allege that he suffered a cognizable adverse employment action and not necessarily termination.
- An unpaid leave of absence can constitute an adverse employment action if it was unreasonable under the circumstances.
- Requiring an employee to take leave when the employee can work with a reasonable accommodation constitutes an adverse employment action.
VI
Thoughts/Takeaways
- Whenever dealing with the concept of a qualified individual under the ADA, remember it is whether the person can do the essential functions of the job with OR without reasonable accommodations.
- While I have my first law degree from the University of San Diego, I never took the California bar exam. So, when it comes to the FEHA, be sure to consult a licensed attorney in California.
- Once the employer is made aware of an employee’s disability, it has the burden to take affirmative steps to accommodate the employee’s limitations.
- The leave of absence cases only work in the event that there would be a change in the employee’s condition at the end of the leave, which wasn’t the situation here.
- The defense that no vacant positions exist comes in at summary judgment and not at the motion to dismiss. At the pleading stage, it is not up to the plaintiff to have to identify a specific reasonable accommodation that would have been available at the time the interactive process should have occurred because it is the employer with all that information at their disposal.
- The obligation to engage in the interactive process is a continuing one, and it doesn’t matter if the employer takes some steps with respect to the interactive process only to end it later.
- Remember the do’s and don’ts of the interactive process, which we discussed here.
- This court says an adverse action must materially affect terms and conditions of employment. Muldrow, which we discussed here, seems to suggest otherwise. Again, this case involves California law and not federal law.
- The case does match up with Bostock, which we discussed here, with respect to causation.
- Requiring an employee to take leave when the employee can work with or without reasonable accommodations constitute an adverse employment action.
- I am not a licensed attorney in California.