Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc.
213 Cal. App. 4th 1331
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Fuentes Sanchez; former Swissport employee; high-risk pregnancy leading to disability.
- She received temporary leave beginning Feb 2009, anticipating birth around Oct 2009.
- Swissport gave just over 19 weeks of leave combining accrued vacation and PDLL/CFRA leave, then terminated her July 14, 2009.
- FAC asserted pregnancy/pregnancy-related disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in interactive process, retaliation, and related claims.
- Swissport demurred, arguing PDLL/CFRA compliance satisfied FEHA obligations; dismissal without leave to amend.
- Appeals court held PDLL leaves augment FEHA; FEHA claims viable; reversed demurrer and allowed FEHA claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does PDLL exhaustion bar FEHA claims | Fuentes Sanchez: FEHA rights remain; PDLL is only one remedy. | Swissport: four-month PDLL leave satisfies FEHA; no further accommodation. | No; FEHA claims survive; PDLL augments FEHA remedies. |
| Whether FEHA permits reasonable accommodation beyond four months | FEHA allows reasonable accommodation, including longer leaves where feasible. | PDLL cap controls; no extra accommodation once four months elapsed. | Yes; finite or extended leaves can be reasonable accommodations if no undue hardship. |
| Whether employee’s termination while disabled violates FEHA | Discrimination related to pregnancy/disability; termination could be unlawful. | Termination occurred after PDLL leave expired; not unlawful under FEHA. | Allegations state FEHA discrimination and retaliation claims; not barred by PDLL alone. |
| Whether failure to engage in interactive process supports FEHA claims | Swissport failed to reasonably engage for accommodations. | No evidence of required interaction; but PDLL compliance nonetheless. | FAC viable under FEHA §12940(m) and (n) for failure to engage in interactive process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 74 Cal.App.4th 215 (1999) (finite leave can be a reasonable accommodation if end result is capability to perform duties)
- Watkins v. Ameripride Services, 375 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2004) (leave open for extended period can satisfy reasonable accommodation)
- Neisendorf v. Levi Strauss & Co., 143 Cal.App.4th 509 (2006) (CFRA compliance does not address PDLL expansion of FEHA protections)
- Rogers v. County of Los Angeles, 198 Cal.App.4th 480 (2011) (CFRA context; not addressing PDLL-disability interplay)
- Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank, 85 Cal.App.4th 245 (2000) (disability leave as reasonable accommodation may be required)
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (1998) (agency interpretation given deference in statutory construction)