181 F. Supp. 3d 767
E.D. Cal.2016Background
- Tina Canupp was Health and Wellness Manager at Children’s Receiving Home of Sacramento (CRH) from 2010 until termination in Feb. 2014 after FMLA/CFRA and a 30‑day personal leave expired.
- She took FMLA/CFRA leave for back surgery and related conditions; by termination she had foot drop and an uncertain surgery/return date and was receiving disability benefits.
- Canupp alleges FEHA disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process; FMLA/CFRA interference and retaliation; Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5 (whistleblower) for reporting alleged staff sexual misconduct to DSS; and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
- CRH moved for summary judgment on all claims; Canupp cross‑moved on the interactive‑process claim and several affirmative defenses.
- Key factual disputes: (a) amount and calculation method of Canupp’s prior FMLA leave (rolling 12‑month vs. other), (b) whether CRH properly notified Canupp of retroactive FMLA designation, and (c) whether CRH or Canupp was responsible for a breakdown in interactive‑process communications.
- Additional contested facts: CRH discovered used Target gift cards in Canupp’s office shortly before termination (possible after‑acquired evidence); DSS issued regulatory citations to CRH after investigating Canupp’s reports.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FEHA reasonable accommodation (Cal. Gov’t Code §12940(m)) | Canupp: CRH should have granted additional leave, allowed part‑time work from home, or reassigned her. | CRH: Direct patient care is an essential function; leave needed was indefinite; remote work or reassignment not feasible. | Granted for CRH — Canupp could not perform essential duties even with accommodation; indefinite leave and work‑from‑home were not reasonable and no vacant remote position existed. |
| FEHA discrimination (§12940(a)) | Canupp: Termination was because of disability. | CRH: Even with disability, Canupp was not qualified to perform essential functions; termination based on inability to work. | Granted for CRH — cannot show she was qualified to perform essential functions with accommodation. |
| FEHA interactive process (§12940(n)) | Canupp: CRH failed to engage in good‑faith interactive process and did not produce accommodations. | CRH: Engaged and requested medical info; any breakdown may be Canupp’s fault; and no reasonable accommodation existed. | Granted for CRH — factual dispute over communication exists, but no reasonable accommodation was available, so Canupp’s claim fails. |
| FMLA retaliation (29 U.S.C. §2615) | Canupp: termination in retaliation / discrimination under FMLA. | CRH: No evidence she opposed an FMLA‑unlawful practice; no FMLA retaliation claim separate from leave calculation. | Granted for CRH — no cognizable FMLA retaliation claim. |
| FMLA interference — entitlement to 12 weeks | Canupp: CRH miscalculated her prior FMLA (retroactive designation) and denied full 12 weeks. | CRH: Used rolling 12‑month method and properly designated prior absences as FMLA. | Denied for CRH (i.e., claim survives) — genuine disputes of fact about prior leave and notice preclude summary judgment. |
| FMLA interference — failure to reinstate | Canupp: CRH failed to reinstate her at FMLA expiration. | CRH: Even if leave should have run longer, Canupp was unable to perform essential functions at expiration. | Granted for CRH — undisputed evidence she was disabled and unable to return when leave would have expired. |
| CFRA claims | Parallel to FMLA claims. | Same. | CFRA claims survive only to the extent FMLA entitlement claim survives; CFRA retaliation/reinstatement claims granted for CRH. |
| Labor Code §1102.5 (whistleblower) | Canupp: She reported sexual misconduct to DSS and was retaliated against (reduced raise, warnings, termination). | CRH: Some conduct was only internal and not protected; termination was for inability to return to work. | Denied for CRH — §1102.5 claim survives summary judgment on termination and reduced‑raise theories; triable issues on causation and pretext remain. |
| Wrongful termination / public policy | Canupp: Termination violated public policy (reports to DSS). | CRH: Legitimate reasons. | Denied for CRH — survives to the extent underlying statutory claims survive. |
| Remedies (injunctive relief, back pay, front pay) | Canupp seeks relief. | CRH moved to moot these. | Denied as moot without prejudice — remedies left for trial on surviving claims. |
| After‑acquired evidence & other defenses | Canupp moved to preclude these defenses (gift‑cards issue). | CRH: Found cards before termination and would have investigated/terminated if proven. | Canupp’s motion denied as to after‑acquired evidence — triable issue whether CRH would have lawfully terminated based on investigation; unclean‑hands defense granted for Canupp (no direct relation). |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (non‑moving party must show specific facts)
- Lawler v. Montblanc N. Am., LLC, 704 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2013) (attendance and ability to work affect FEHA accommodation analysis)
- Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Ass'n, 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (work‑from‑home accommodation when essential functions can be performed remotely)
- Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 675 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir. 2012) (on‑site attendance essential for certain nursing positions)
- Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, 234 Cal.App.4th 359 (Cal. Ct. App.) (elements of FEHA accommodation claim and reassignment guidance)
- Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 74 Cal.App.4th 215 (Cal. Ct. App.) (finite leave can be reasonable; indefinite leave is not)
- Nadaf‑Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 166 Cal.App.4th 952 (Cal. Ct. App.) (burden on employee to show an available reasonable accommodation for interactive process claim)
- Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., 90 F.3d 1477 (9th Cir. 1996) (inconsistency between disability claims/benefits and deposition testimony defeats genuine dispute)
- Bachelder v. American West Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2001) (FMLA leave and reinstatement rights)
- Xin Liu v. Amway Corp., 347 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of FMLA interference claim)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination/retaliation cases)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co., 513 U.S. 352 (after‑acquired evidence limits to remedies)
- Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., 59 Cal.4th 407 (Cal. 2014) (after‑acquired evidence and limits on remedies under FEHA)