Swanson v. Morongo Unif. School Dist. CA4/3
232 Cal. App. 4th 954
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Swanson, a veteran elementary teacher, was hired by Morongo Unified School District in 2006 as a reading/technology specialist; she was diagnosed with breast cancer in July 2007, took medical leave for treatment, and returned in March 2008.
- For 2008–2009 the District reassigned Swanson (after denying her request for a 2nd-grade vacancy she said she could teach) to kindergarten, a grade she had not taught in ~30 years; she alleged health risks from kindergarten exposure and that the reassignment required substantial new preparation.
- Swanson received incomplete support: promised preevaluation materials arrived late, a requested mentor was not provided, and she was placed on a remediation plan with additional observations.
- During the remediation sequence an administrator allegedly pressured her to resign and the Board voted not to renew her probationary contract before completion of all remediation observations.
- Swanson sued under FEHA for (1) discrimination based on medical condition/disability, (2) failure to reasonably accommodate, and (3) failure to engage in the interactive process; the trial court granted summary judgment for the District.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, finding triable issues of fact on discrimination, and that the District failed to carry its initial summary judgment burden on the accommodation and interactive-process claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District unlawfully discriminated (medical-condition/ disability) by assignments and treatment after cancer/leave | Swanson: District reassigned her to set her up for failure (harder assignments, fewer resources) to manufacture grounds to nonrenew | District: Nonrenewal was legitimate, nondiscriminatory — based on poor performance despite remediation | Reversed: Triable issues exist; evidence could show assignments/resources were manipulated as pretext for nonrenewal |
| Whether District failed to reasonably accommodate by denying requested 2nd-grade reassignment | Swanson: 2nd-grade vacancy was a reasonable reassignment accommodation she requested (familiar grade, less prep) | District: Not required to provide employee’s preferred accommodation; it offered other assignments (5th grade then kindergarten) | Reversed: District did not meet initial summary-judgment burden to show requested position was unreasonable or unavailable or offered assignments were reasonable accommodations |
| Whether District failed to engage in good-faith interactive process | Swanson: District unilaterally reassigned her without meaningful dialogue about accommodations and denied proposed reassignment | District: It engaged by changing assignment (from 5th to kindergarten) when she objected | Reversed: No evidence District engaged in ongoing good-faith dialogue; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether District met summary-judgment burden shifting under McDonnell Douglas framework | Swanson: Once District produced nondiscriminatory reason, she produced evidence showing pretext and discriminatory conduct | District: Met initial burden by producing performance reviews and remediation documents | Court: On summary judgment the defendant bears initial burden; District met it as to discrimination but Swanson raised triable issues of pretext and animus; District failed to meet initial burden on accommodation and interactive-process claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (adopting McDonnell Douglas framework for FEHA discrimination claims)
- Scotch v. Art Institute of California, 173 Cal.App.4th 986 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (elements of FEHA failure-to-accommodate claim)
- Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 140 Cal.App.4th 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (interactive-process failure is independent FEHA cause of action)
- Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc., 188 Cal.App.4th 297 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (summary-judgment burden-shifting under McDonnell Douglas in FEHA context)
- Carlsen v. Koivumaki, 227 Cal.App.4th 879 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (summary judgment principles and pleadings’ role in defining issues)