228 F. Supp. 3d 1086
E.D. Cal.2017Background
- Betty Ravel worked for Hewlett-Packard Enterprise (HPE) since 2010 and became Sales Administration Manager in 2015, working primarily remotely.
- In 2015–2016 Ravel developed sciatica and herniated/bulging discs and alleged she cannot sit/stand more than 30 minutes and cannot tolerate a one-hour commute to HPE’s Roseville office.
- Ravel requested to work exclusively from home (or transfer to a closer Folsom office); HPE denied both requests and offered (1) work at Roseville with permission to lie down as needed, and (2) paid medical leave (later reduced to 70% pay).
- Ravel was placed on paid disability leave starting July 22, 2016; she filed suit alleging ADA and FEHA claims for disability discrimination, failure to engage in interactive process, failure to accommodate, failure to prevent discrimination, age discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- HPE moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court evaluated ADA and FEHA claims separately because FEHA can provide broader protections than the ADA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ravel is disabled under the ADA | Ravel alleges sciatica/disc injuries that substantially limit sitting/standing and lifting | HPE contends medical recommendations alone are insufficient to plead a disability | Court: Allegations (orders from provider, limits, permanence) plausibly allege disability under ADA |
| Whether denial of work-from-home/Folsom and offering leave constituted adverse action under the ADA | Ravel says denial of requested accommodations and placement on leave (30% pay cut) was adverse | HPE argues it offered reasonable accommodations (office with lie-down + medical leave) so no adverse action | Court: Medical leave was a reasonable ADA accommodation; because HPE offered a reasonable accommodation, ADA discrimination and ADA accommodation claims dismissed |
| Whether HPE violated FEHA by placing Ravel on leave instead of allowing work-from-home/Folsom | Ravel argues either requested accommodation was reasonable under FEHA and leave was improper under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 11068(c) | HPE argues leave was a lawful accommodation and it engaged in the interactive process | Court: Ravel plausibly alleged work-from-home or Folsom would be reasonable; under FEHA §11068(c) employer may not force leave when other reasonable accommodation exists—FEHA claims survive |
| Whether failure-to-engage, failure-to-prevent, age discrimination, and IIED claims survive | Ravel alleges HPE failed to engage in a good-faith interactive process (both statutes), failed to prevent discrimination, discriminated based on age, and inflicted emotional distress by pressuring return and cutting pay | HPE contends it responded and offered accommodations, denies age-based motive and denies conduct was extreme | Court: Failure-to-engage and failure-to-prevent survive under FEHA (interactive dispute and derivative prevention claim); age claim dismissed for lack of plausible inference; IIED survives for factual development |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Ass'n, 239 F.3d 1128 (leave can be reasonable accommodation; ADA/FEHA analyses often aligned)
- Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 164 F.3d 1243 (elements of ADA discrimination claim)
- Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (employer need not provide plaintiff's preferred accommodation)
- Wallace v. County of Stanislaus, 245 Cal.App.4th 109 (Cal. regulation prohibiting forcing leave when other reasonable accommodation exists)