Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc.
5 Cal. App. 5th 570
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Sofia Soria was an on-air radio personality at Univision from 1997 until her termination in November 2011; supervisors had complained about her tardiness after August 2011.
- Soria had a non‑symptomatic stomach/esophageal tumor diagnosed years earlier; by Oct–Nov 2011 doctors recommended removal because malignancy could not be ruled out. She ultimately had surgery in April 2012 (post‑termination) and the tumor proved benign.
- Between May and November 2011 Soria missed or arrived late to work at least nine times for doctor appointments related to the tumor; she notified supervisors in advance and received permission for those absences.
- Soria testified she told supervisor Maria Nava about the tumor, biopsy, and desire to have surgery in December 2011 and that Nava denied leave because another employee would be on leave; Nava disputes these conversations (conflicting testimony).
- Univision terminated Soria November 16, 2011, citing chronic tardiness and lack of preparation; Soria had prior positive reviews, survived two rounds of layoffs, and received good ratings.
- Soria sued for FEHA disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, CFRA interference/retaliation, and wrongful termination; the trial court granted summary judgment to Univision. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, finding triable issues of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Soria had a FEHA‑protected disability (actual, perceived, or potential) | Tumor and its treatment (doctor visits, possible surgery) limited major life activities (normal cell growth, working); supervisors knew or perceived risk | Tumor was asymptomatic and did not limit major life activities; Univision lacked knowledge of any disability; plaintiff pleaded only physical disability, not "medical condition" | Triable issues exist as to actual, perceived, and potential disability; but plaintiff could not rely on an unpleaded “medical condition” (cancer‑related) theory raised for first time in opposition |
| Whether Univision had discriminatory intent in termination | Termination followed disclosure/requests for leave; performance reviews and longevity show pretext for tardiness reason | Termination for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (chronic tardiness, lack of preparation) supported by declarations | Triable issues of fact: timing, prior positive reviews, inconsistencies in Univision’s tardiness evidence, and overlap of tardiness with medical absences permit inference of pretext |
| Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (FEHA) | Soria informed Nava she planned surgery and requested time off; Univision failed to engage or seek alternatives | Univision contends Soria did not make a clear request, had not decided on surgery, and gave no specifics | Triable issues: plaintiff’s testimony could constitute a sufficient request; employer had duty to inquire and identify accommodations; summary adjudication improper |
| Failure to engage in interactive process (FEHA) | Employer did not participate after notice; no steps were taken to identify accommodations | Employer denies that a covered request occurred and claims it reasonably responded | Triable issues exist because factual dispute on whether Soria requested accommodation and Univision’s lack of follow‑up |
| CFRA interference/retaliation (leave) | Soria’s statements about surgery constituted sufficient notice to trigger CFRA; termination was retaliation | Univision argues no qualifying "serious health condition," no proper CFRA notice, and legitimate nondiscriminatory reason | Triable issues: whether condition qualified (continuing treatment/inpatient) and whether notice satisfied CFRA regs; employer has duty to inquire — summary adjudication improper |
| Wrongful termination in violation of public policy | Termination was for requesting medical leave/ because of medical condition | Follows Univision’s nondiscriminatory explanation | Because triable issues on FEHA/CFRA claims exist, wrongful termination claim survives summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (2000) (McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting framework in FEHA cases)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (2001) (summary judgment burdens when defendant moves and plaintiff must show triable issues)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (prima facie discrimination and burden shifting)
- Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 165 Cal.App.4th 1237 (2008) (what constitutes adequate employer notice of a qualifying leave/condition)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (2005) (timing of protected activity and prior knowledge as evidence of pretext)