Cynthia Lawler v. Montblanc North America, LLC
704 F.3d 1235
9th Cir.2013Background
- Lawler, a store manager for Montblanc North America, worked at the Valley Fair boutique from Sept 2001 to Oct 2009.
- In June 2009 Lawler was diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis, and requested a reduced 20–25 hour workweek; Montblanc asked for medical information to assess accommodation.
- Aug 4–5, 2009 Lawler fractured toes; Montblanc approved temporary disability leave and she notified HR of the need for leave.
- Aug 5, 2009 Schmitz and Giannattasio visited the Store, questioned Lawler, and gave her aggressive assignments; a coworker stepped on Lawler’s injured foot during the walk-through.
- Aug 11, 2009 Lawler sent a letter to HR detailing intimidation and disability-related issues; HR did not interview staff or review video.
- Sept 2010 Lawler still off work; Montblanc sought accommodation and later terminated her effective Oct 31, 2009, offering severance; Lawler did not accept.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FEHA disability discrimination | Lawler can perform essential duties with accommodations. | Lawler cannot perform essential duties even with accommodation. | No triable issue; summary judgment affirmed for Montblanc on disability discrimination. |
| FEHA retaliation | Termination followed August 11 complaint and was pretextual. | Termination for inability to perform duties; legitimate business reason. | No triable issue on pretext; summary judgment affirmed. |
| FEHA harassment | Schmitz’s conduct created a hostile environment beyond normal managerial actions. | Conduct relates to business operations and not severe or pervasive harassment. | Harassment claim fails under FEHA; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Schmitz’s conduct was extreme and caused severe distress. | Conduct was not extreme or severe; not IIED. | IIED claim not supported; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. State, 165 P.3d 118 (Cal. 2007) (employment ability with/without accommodation governs FEHA protections)
- Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Dept. of Fair Empl’t & Hous., 642 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2011) (employer must show legitimate nondiscriminatory reason on summary judgment)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 116 P.3d 1123 (Cal. 2005) (McDonnell Douglas framework for retaliation claims)
- Arteaga v. Brink’s, Inc., 77 Cal. Rptr. 3d 654 (Ct. App. 2008) (pretext analysis in retaliation claims requires substantial evidence)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 8 P.3d 1089 (Cal. 2000) (tripartite burden-shifting framework for FEHA discrimination)
- Reno v. Baird, 957 P.2d 1333 (Cal. 1998) (harassment requires conduct outside job duties; pervasiveness matters)
- Janken v. GM Hughes Elecs., 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 741 (Ct. App. 1996) (supervisory conduct and performance criticism not IIED)
- Hughes v. Pair, 209 P.3d 963 (Cal. 2009) (definition of severe emotional distress)
- Schneider v. TRW, Inc., 938 F.2d 986 (9th Cir. 1991) (IIED limits for workplace criticisms)
- Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 2001) (pretext standard for retaliation evidence)
- Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., 90 F.3d 1477 (9th Cir. 1996) (employees cannot show accommodation if totally disabled)