Garland Wilfong v. Tharco Packaging, Inc.
671 F. App'x 549
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Garland Wilfong worked at Tharco Packaging and suffered from gout and arthritis that affected walking and working.
- Wilfong requested accommodations: use of a cot, reduced overtime, and additional medical leave; he also complained about attendance discipline and refused to sign a suspension notice.
- Tharco imposed attendance discipline (warnings, suspension) and ultimately terminated Wilfong after finding a second lock-out/tag-out violation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Tharco on FEHA and CFRA claims; Wilfong appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit found evidence suggesting Tharco decisionmakers were hostile to medical leave, interpreted Wilfong’s leave unfavorably, and may have used a violation to trigger automatic termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilfong is disabled under FEHA | Gout/arthritis substantially limit major life activities (working, walking) | Conditions not sufficiently limiting to qualify as disability | Genuine issue of material fact exists; cannot resolve on summary judgment |
| Whether Tharco failed to provide reasonable accommodations / engage in interactive process | Denied cot, reduced overtime, more leave and did not properly engage in interactive process | Provided legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons and responded appropriately | Issues of fact as to failure to accommodate and interactive process preclude summary judgment |
| Whether Tharco discriminated/used disability as motivating factor in discipline/termination | Discipline and termination were motivated substantially by disability and hostility to medical leave | Actions were for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (policy violations) | Jury could find pretext; timing, hostility, and post‑hoc interpretations create factual disputes |
| Whether CFRA rights were interfered with or retaliation occurred | Failed to timely request recertification and counted CFRA leave as absences; suspended Wilfong for asserting CFRA rights | Followed attendance policy and proper leave procedures | Genuine issues of material fact on CFRA interference and retaliation; reverse and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 424 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir.) (disability analysis under ADA/FEHA major‑life‑activity framework)
- Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203 (Cal.) (substantial‑motivating‑factor causation under FEHA)
- Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 248 Cal. App. 4th 216 (Cal. Ct. App.) (accommodation requests not always FEHA protected activity)
- Flait v. N. Am. Watch Corp., 3 Cal. App. 4th 467 (Cal. Ct. App.) (timing can support inference of causation for retaliation claims)
- Avila v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 165 Cal. App. 4th 1237 (Cal. Ct. App.) (counting protected leave as absences can constitute CFRA interference)