McMillan v. Lewis-Goetz and Company, Inc.
2:14-cv-01359
E.D. Cal.Aug 7, 2017Background
- McMillan, a Water Jet operator with longstanding Crohn’s disease, worked for Lewis-Goetz/Valley Rubber from April 2011 until termination in March 2013; he suffered a workplace hand injury in Feb 2012 and returned with restrictions.
- In Feb 2013 McMillan was involuntarily committed; after discharge the company required medical clearance/EAP contact before return and ultimately terminated him for allegedly unexcused absences and failure to provide medical certification.
- McMillan sued under FEHA for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and sought emotional distress damages.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on the first four causes of action and separately moved to compel a Rule 35 mental examination and to modify the scheduling order to allow it.
- The court denied summary judgment, finding triable issues on qualification, accommodation, pretext, and interactive-process claims based on conflicting deposition testimony, emails, and plaintiff’s account of incomplete or intermittent accommodations and discriminatory perceptions by supervisors.
- The court granted the Rule 35 motion (mental exam by Dr. Ronald H. Roberts) because McMillan intended to offer expert psychiatric testimony relating to severe/distinct mental injuries (including suicidal ideation/psychosis), satisfied the Turner factors, and good cause for amendment of the scheduling order was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McMillan is a "qualified individual" under FEHA | McMillan claims he could perform essential functions with assistance; essential functions (heavy lifting alone) are disputed. | Company asserts 50–100 lb lifting and independent material handling are essential and McMillan cannot perform them. | Triable issue: factual dispute over essential functions and whether assistance suffices; summary judgment denied. |
| Whether termination was pretext for disability discrimination | McMillan points to emails and testimony showing supervisors perceived him as mentally/physically incapable and HR advised minimizing explanations; also disparate treatment re: prior absence for hand injury. | Company says termination was for unexcused absences/failure to provide medical certification and decision was made by branch manager. | Triable issue: circumstantial evidence could support pretext; summary judgment denied. |
| Whether employer failed to accommodate / engage in interactive process | McMillan contends requested assistance was not consistently provided, supervisors yelled and pressured him, and temporary help had gaps. | Company contends it provided the only requested accommodation (assistance) and hired temps to assist. | Triable issue: record supports reasonable jury could find failure to accommodate and failure to engage in interactive process; summary judgment denied. |
| Whether mental condition is "in controversy" and Rule 35 exam justified | McMillan seeks emotional distress damages and intends to offer expert psychiatric testimony linking employer conduct to severe disorders and suicide attempt. | Company seeks Rule 35 exam to rebut plaintiff’s experts and to test claims of psychiatric injury. | Held: Plaintiff’s planned expert testimony (and alleged suicide/psychotic reaction) places mental condition in controversy and good cause exists; court orders exam and amends schedule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (establishes Rule 35 requirements that condition be "in controversy" and there be "good cause")
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting and standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue and reasonable inference standards for summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment and requiring more than metaphysical doubt)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (California discussion of McDonnell Douglas and circumstantial proof in employment discrimination)
- Scotch v. Art Inst. of California-Orange Cty., 173 Cal. App.4th 986 (FEHA discrimination elements)