Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group
217 Cal. Rptr. 3d 258
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Featherstone, an at-will SCPMG employee since 2009, took medical leave for sinus surgery and returned to work without restrictions on December 16, 2013.
- On December 23, 2013, while allegedly experiencing an adverse drug reaction causing an altered mental state, she telephoned her supervisor and resigned; she confirmed the resignation by email on December 26, 2013.
- SCPMG immediately processed her voluntary termination paperwork the same day the resignation was tendered and marked her as eligible for rehire.
- On December 24–26, 2013 Featherstone was hospitalized for behavioral changes; she later informed SCPMG HR that her resignation resulted from an adverse reaction to Phenergan with codeine and sought to rescind the resignation.
- SCPMG, after reviewing medical information and consulting counsel, refused to allow rescission; Featherstone sued asserting FEHA disability discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for SCPMG; the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding (1) refusal to allow rescission of a voluntary resignation is not an adverse employment action, and (2) SCPMG lacked knowledge of Featherstone’s alleged disability when it accepted her resignation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer’s refusal to allow rescission of a resignation is an adverse employment action under FEHA | Featherstone: refusal to permit rescission harmed her employment rights and thus is an adverse action under FEHA | SCPMG: resignation was voluntary, accepted and processed; refusal to rescind a post-acceptance resignation does not affect terms/conditions of employment | Court: refusal to allow rescission of a voluntary, accepted resignation is not an adverse employment action |
| Whether SCPMG knew (or should have known) of Featherstone’s disability such that accommodation/interactive-process duties were triggered | Featherstone: she was temporarily disabled by an adverse drug reaction at the time she resigned; SCPMG learned enough to know and should have allowed rescission/accommodated | SCPMG: supervisors had no notice before acceptance; behavior/communications were not plainly indicative of disability; the HR tip occurred after resignation and was insufficient | Court: no evidence SCPMG knew of disability before accepting resignation; duties to accommodate or engage did not arise |
| Whether constructive discharge or coercion made the resignation involuntary | Featherstone: resignation caused by adverse drug reaction (implies involuntariness) | SCPMG: no evidence employer coercion or intolerable conditions; resignation appears voluntary | Court: no evidence of employer coercion or intolerable conditions; resignation was voluntary (any coercion was from medical reaction, not employer) |
| Whether derivative and public-policy claims survive absent FEHA violation | Featherstone: wrongful termination and failure-to-prevent claims premised on underlying FEHA violations | SCPMG: if FEHA claims fail, derivative claims fail as a matter of law | Court: derivative failure-to-prevent and wrongful-termination claims fail because underlying FEHA claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (California Supreme Court) (summary judgment standard and burden shifting in employment discrimination cases)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (California Supreme Court) (definition and scope of adverse employment action under FEHA)
- Hammon v. DHL Airways, Inc., 165 F.3d 441 (6th Cir.) (an employee who voluntarily resigns cannot treat employer’s acceptance as adverse action)
- Curby v. Solutia, Inc., 351 F.3d 868 (8th Cir.) (refusal to accept rescission of voluntary resignation not an adverse employment action)
- Ulrich v. City & County of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.) (employee may rescind resignation only prior to employer’s acceptance)
- MacLean v. City of St. Petersburg, 194 F.Supp.2d 1290 (M.D. Fla.) (court treats resignation as presumed voluntary absent coercion or misrepresentation; refusal to permit rescission not adverse)