Ralph Villalobos v. Twc Administration
16-55288
| 9th Cir. | Dec 26, 2017Background
- Villalobos worked 24 years as a Direct Sales Representative for TWC and predecessors and was terminated in February 2014 while on medical leave for anxiety, depression, and insomnia.
- He requested extensions of leave and a doctor provided a return-to-work date (March 10, 2014); TWC terminated him citing "repeated, prolonged leaves of absence."
- TWC decisionmakers had HR involvement and were copied on emails about his medical leave; HR reviewed medical certifications and handled accommodation requests.
- Villalobos had no documented negative performance reviews over his 24-year tenure and soon after termination obtained other door-to-door sales work.
- TWC had previously allowed other employees extended leaves (one ~7 months, another ~18 months) and its written materials referenced extended leave as a possible accommodation.
- Villalobos sued under California FEHA for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, age discrimination, and wrongful termination; district court granted summary judgment for TWC, Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination (FEHA §12940(a)) | Villalobos was terminated because of disability; conduct (leaves) flowed from disability; he was a qualified individual and leave could be a reasonable accommodation | Termination was for repeated, prolonged leaves; decisionmaker did not know medical reason for leave so termination was not disability-based | Reversed: triable issues exist on causation, qualification, reasonableness of leave, and undue hardship |
| Failure to reasonably accommodate (FEHA §12940(m)) | TWC failed to provide reasonable accommodation (extension of leave) though leave could be finite and would enable return | Previous repeated, unsuccessful extensions show further leave would be unreasonable | Reversed: triable issues whether additional leave was reasonable and whether TWC failed in its continuing duty to accommodate |
| Failure to engage interactive process (FEHA §12940(n)) | HR did not communicate regarding Villalobos's final extension request and did not warn termination would follow; employer failed to engage in good-faith interactive process | Employer contends it evaluated requests and relied on collaborative decisionmakers | Reversed: triable issues exist because employer did not show a lack of triable facts about its interactive-process participation |
| Age discrimination (FEHA §12940(a)) | Villalobos (61) was performing satisfactorily, replaced by substantially younger hires, and decisionmaker made remark about removing "veteran" reps | TWC cites legitimate nondiscriminatory reason: repeated, prolonged leaves | Reversed: triable issues on prima facie showing and pretext—TWC's stated reason is tied to disability and therefore not a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason |
| Wrongful termination in violation of public policy | Villalobos argues termination violated public policy embodied in FEHA protections | TWC argues lawful exercise of termination for attendance/performance | Reversed: because triable FEHA claims exist, wrongful termination claim also survives |
Key Cases Cited
- McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (discrimination claims often require credibility determinations; low bar to survive summary judgment)
- France v. Johnson, 795 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment standard in discrimination cases)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 8 P.3d 1089 (Cal. 2000) (California adopts McDonnell Douglas framework for discrimination claims)
- Humphrey v. Mem’l Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (conduct caused by disability is disability-based; interactive-process obligation)
- Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 166 Cal. App. 4th 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (elements of FEHA disability claim; qualified individual standard)
- Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 164 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 1999) (extended leave can be a reasonable accommodation)
- Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank, 85 Cal. App. 4th 245 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (finite vs. indefinite leave; foreseeability of return)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Santillan v. USA Waste of Cal., Inc., 853 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2017) (employer proffer that violates public policy cannot satisfy step two of McDonnell Douglas)
- Wysinger v. Auto. Club of S. Cal., 157 Cal. App. 4th 413 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (decisionmaker ignorance does not necessarily shield employer when others bore animus)