Jackson v. Kaplan Higher Education, LLC
106 F. Supp. 3d 1118
| E.D. Cal. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Marcella Jackson, a Career Services Advisor at Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (KHEC), began employment in May 2009 and had a change in direct supervisor when Tamara Honohan became Director of Career Services in Nov 2012.
- Plaintiff requested FMLA/CFRA leave on Jan 7, 2013 due to anxiety and related symptoms arising from interactions with Honohan; medical leave was extended multiple times, with LTD benefits beginning around Apr 2013 and a final extension through Sep 9, 2013.
- Defendant terminated Plaintiff on May 2, 2013 while she was on medical leave and unable to provide a firm return-to-work date.
- Plaintiff filed a DFEH complaint on May 13, 2013 alleging age and disability discrimination; a right-to-sue letter issued June 18, 2013.
- Plaintiff asserted eight claims: six under FEHA (age and disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to prevent discrimination, plus retaliation) and two under CFRA/FMLA/FMLA retaliation; Defendant moved for summary judgment.
- The court applies the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to FEHA retaliation and discrimination claims and resolves several claims on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination under FEHA | Plaintiff was disabled under FEHA due to mental health condition. | Plaintiff did not have a FEHA-qualifying disability; her anxiety was a reaction to supervision, not a preexisting disability. | Disability claim provisionally unresolved; court found no FEHA disability shown, with input invited. |
| Age discrimination under FEHA | Honohan's comments about retirement show age bias; termination and non-rehire suggest age discrimination. | No evidence linking termination/non-rehire to age; decision tied to LT disability and absence of a definite return date. | Summary judgment granted for Defendant; no inference of age-based discrimination supported. |
| Failure to accommodate and interactive process | Defendant failed to accommodate disability and engaged in a deficient interactive process. | Plaintiff lacked a qualifying disability and requested accommodations that were not required or would cause undue hardship; interactive process not triggered. | Provisionally granted; Court concluded no disability evidence; summary judgment likely for failure to accommodate/interactive process. |
| Retaliation related to termination | Termination was a retaliatory action for protected activities including complaints and FMLA/CFRA leave. | Terminate for inability to provide return-to-work date; legitimate non-retaliatory reason. | Summary judgment for Defendant on termination-based retaliation. |
| Retaliation related to non-rehire | Not rehired after medical leave constitutes retaliation for protected activities. | No adverse employment action; no right to rehire existed at time of medical clearance. | Summary judgment for Defendant; no prima facie adverse action to support retaliation claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat'l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (prima facie FEHA discrimination elements)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (three-step burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Diaz v. Federal Express Corp., 373 F.Supp.2d 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (discusses disability scope under FEHA)
- Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 143 F.3d 1042 (6th Cir. 1998) (employer not required to wait indefinitely for return-to-work date)
- Hobson v. Raychem Corp., 73 Cal.App.4th 614 (Cal. App. 1999) (inability to get along with supervisor not a disability under FEHA/ADA)
- Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 1019 (Cal. 2003) (disability-related protections under FEHA/ADA)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (pretext evidence can suffice to show discriminatory intent)