On February 25, 2016, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District held that employees can prove disability discrimination without having to show the employer acted intentionally or in bad faith. The Court held that unlike discrimination cases involving race, age or sex, an employer cannot avoid liability by showing it acted in a reasonable and good faith manner in a disability discrimination action. The Court further held that an honest but mistaken belief about an employee’s disability will also not preclude liability.
In Wallace v. County of Stanislaus (CA5 F068068), Sheriff’s Deputy Dennis Wallace (“Wallace”) sued the County of Stanislaus (“County”) for damages under Government Code section 12940. In 1997, Wallace was hired by the County as a deputy sheriff. During his employment, he was injured on a number of occasions, had knee surgery and took more than a year of paid leave. Wallace returned to work at the County in 2010 at which time the County offered Wallace a job as a bailiff to accommodate his work restrictions. Subsequently, Wallace underwent an additional medical exam. The doctor’s report following the exam listed various “preclusions.” Among other restrictions, Wallace was not permitted to lift more than 50 pounds, could not lift heavy objects and could not engage in repetitive activities. According to the Court’s record, the examining doctor used the terms “preclusion” and “precluded” to mean “something that should be avoided 90 to 100 percent of the time, with 90 percent being a reasonable estimate.” The County, however, incorrectly interpreted “preclusion” to mean “prohibited,” and removed Wallace from his bailiff position on the grounds he could not perform the job with the restrictions placed on him by his doctor. The County also determined it did not have any other position that could accommodate his work restrictions. Wallace was placed on unpaid leave.
Shortly before his sick leave and vacation benefits were exhausted, Wallace sued the County alleging causes of action for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate his disability, failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to prevent discrimination. At trial, the judge instructed the jury that it needed to find that the County acted intentionally in order to find in favor of Wallace. The jury found that there was no intentional conduct by the County and ruled against Wallace.
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court. The Court of Appeal held that unlike other discrimination claims covered by Section 12940, a finding of “ill will” or animus is not a required predicate element to a finding of discrimination. The Court writes: “we conclude that disability discrimination claims are fundamentally different from the discrimination claims based on the other factors listed in section 12940(a). These differences arise because (1) additional statutory provisions apply to disability discrimination claims, (2) the Legislature made separate findings and declarations about the protections given to disabled persons, and (3) discrimination cases involving race, religion, national origin, age and sex, often involve pretexts for the adverse employment action – an issue about motivation that appears less frequently in disability discrimination cases.” The trial court erred, accordingly, by instructing the jury it needed to find “ill will” or “intent” in order to find in favor of Wallace.
The Court of Appeal also rejected the County’s argument that liability was precluded based on its honest mistake concerning Wallace’s disability status. The Court held that an honest but mistaken belief does preclude liability “in other discrimination contexts, such as race, age or sex,” but not in a disability discrimination case. The Court held that the intent of the Legislature was to “provide protection when an individual is erroneously or mistakenly believed to have any physical or mental condition that limits a major life activity.” (Emphasis in original). Thus, the County’s honest mistake about Wallace’s ability to perform his job did not provide it protection from liability.
The Wallace case reinforces two important holdings that provide valuable guidance for employers. The first is the Court’s unambiguous statement that California law does not require an employee with an actual or perceived disability to prove that the employer’s adverse employment action was motivated by animosity or ill will against the employee. The second important takeaway is the Court’s finding that a good faith mistake is not a defense. According to the Court, “the financial consequences of an employer’s mistaken belief that an employee is unable to safely perform a job’s essential functions should be borne by the employer, not the employee, even if the employer’s mistake was reasonable and made in good faith.”
This document is intended to provide you with information about employment and labor law related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.