Wallace v. County of Stanislaus
245 Cal. App. 4th 109
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Wallace, a Stanislaus County deputy sheriff, worked as a bailiff after a work-related knee injury and related medical restrictions; he returned to full patrol duty in January 2013 after a fitness-for-duty exam.
- In January 2011 County removed Wallace from his bailiff assignment and placed him on unpaid leave based on an agreed medical examiner’s restrictions (Dr. Baker) and the County’s view he could not safely perform duties even with accommodation.
- A first jury found County regarded Wallace as disabled, that Wallace could perform essential duties with or without accommodation, and that County failed to prove he would be unsafe performing them — but answered “No” to whether County regarded him as having a disability “in order to discriminate,” resolving the discrimination claim for County.
- The trial court had modified CACI No. 2540 to require proof that County regarded Wallace as having a disability “in order to discriminate,” effectively importing an animus/ill-will requirement.
- On appeal the court held that requirement was erroneous under California law (Harris): the correct standard is whether the actual or perceived disability was a substantial motivating reason for the adverse action.
- Because the jury found Wallace could perform essential duties and County failed to prove safety risk, the appellate court concluded as a matter of law County’s mistaken safety-based perception was a substantial motivating reason and that County’s leave decision caused Wallace’s economic losses; it reversed and remanded for a limited retrial on damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for employer intent under FEHA (meaning of "because of") | Harris requires substantial-motivating-factor test; no animus/ill-will needed — disability need only be a substantial motivating reason | County argued plaintiff must prove animus/ill will (intent to discriminate) causally linked to action | Court: adopt Harris — disability is a "substantial motivating reason"; no requirement of animosity or ill will |
| Validity of trial court’s modification of CACI (requiring showing County "regarded or treated [him] as having a disability in order to discriminate") | Instruction misstated law and likely caused verdict for County | County supported instruction as clarifying causal link to animus | Court: modification erroneous and prejudicial; instruction should track substantial-motivating-factor standard |
| Whether substantial-motivating-reason element established | Wallace: County acted because of its perception that he was unsafe — that perception was a substantial motivating reason | County: decision based on legitimate safety/business reasons and compliance with medical restrictions | Court: as matter of law Wallace established substantial-motivating reason because jury already found he could perform duties and County’s decision rested on mistaken safety belief |
| Scope of retrial | Wallace sought retrial limited to damages only | County sought full retrial; argued limited retrial could cause prejudice/confusion | Court: remand for limited retrial on damages (economic amount and noneconomic harm), with liability and key elements already resolved as described |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203 (Cal. 2013) (FEHA "because of" requires that discriminatory consideration be a substantial motivating reason)
- Green v. State of California, 42 Cal.4th 254 (Cal. 2007) (disability discrimination requires plaintiff show ability to perform essential duties with or without accommodation)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (discusses McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (prima facie framework for disparate-treatment cases without direct evidence)
- Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 140 Cal.App.4th 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (discusses CACI No. 2540 elements; usage of "animus" interpreted as motive/intention)
- Reeves v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 121 Cal.App.4th 95 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (illustrative of circumstantial-evidence/animus situations in employment claims)