Sipple v. Crossmark, Inc., 2:10-cv-00570

Sipple, employed as a Crossmark product demonstrator, was placed at Walmart to demonstrate and sell products.
She developed menopausal symptoms, obtained a doctor’s note requesting dress-code accommodations (short sleeves, no collars), and began deviating from the dress code.
Supervisors repeatedly asked compliance with the dress code; Sipple ultimately disclosed menopause and the doctor’s note to HR personnel.
Crossmark reviewed the request, consulted HR, and determined it could not accommodate the requested dress-code changes.
Crossmark offered alternative accommodations which Sipple rejected; she quit and filed FEHA-based claims including disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, and failure to engage in the interactive process, plus a wrongful termination count.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disability discrimination under FEHA	Sipple suffered a disability and was discriminated against.	Menopause is not a disability under FEHA; no prima facie element shown.	Discrimination claim denied; no actual disability or limitation shown.
Retaliation under FEHA	Requests for accommodations constituted protected activity triggering retaliation.	No protected activity establishing discrimination; lack of evidence of awareness of discrimination.	Retaliation claim granted to Crossmark; dismissed against Sipple.
Failure to prevent disability discrimination under FEHA	Employer failed to prevent discrimination and retaliation.	No FEHA violation shown as discrimination/retaliation not established.	Claim dismissed.
Failure to engage in the interactive process under FEHA	Crossmark failed to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process.	Interactive process occurred; accommodation attempts were engaged and concluded.	Claim dismissed; process deemed adequate.
Wrongful termination in violation of public policy	Termination violated FEHA and public policy.	No FEHA violation proven; no wrongful termination liability.	Claim dismissed.

Brundage v. Hahn, 57 Cal. App. 4th 228 (Cal. App. 4th 1997) (McDonnell Douglas framework for FEHA discrimination)
Scotch v. Art Inst. of California, 173 Cal. App. 4th 986 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (elements of FEHA discrimination proof)
Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) (major life activity concept; sub-activity analysis)
Yanowitz v. L’Oreal, 36 Cal. 4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (protected activity and retaliation framework for FEHA)
Aucutt v. Six Flags Over Mid-America, Inc., 65 F.3d 1311 (8th Cir. 1996) (mere knowledge of medical problems not necessarily protected)
Foreman v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 117 F.3d 800 (5th Cir. 1997) (regarded-disabled concept; employer beliefs not always discrimination)
King v. UPS, Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 426 (Cal. App. 4th 2007) (interactive process generally employer–employee duties)
Jurado v. Eleven–Fifty Corp., 813 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1987) (protected activity requires notice of discrimination)
Sch. Bd. Nassau County, Fla. v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (regarded or treated disability concept under ADA)