Wills v. Superior Court
195 Cal. App. 4th 143
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Wills was employed by the OC Court from 1999 until termination in Oct 2007 for alleged threats, threatening conduct, and violence in the workplace under the OC Court’s policies.
- She has bipolar disorder diagnosed in 1997; manic episodes included anger, threats, and impulsive communications.
- During July 2007, Wills allegedly made threatening remarks at the Anaheim Police Department lockup and created a “Kill Bill” list; coworkers felt threatened.
- While on medical leave for a manic episode, she sent a threatening ringtone and numerous alarming emails; a coworker reported these as disturbing.
- OC Court terminated Wills after investigation, citing violations of workplace-threat/violence policies and poor judgment; Wills alleged FEHA disability discrimination and harassment.
- Wills filed a DFEH administrative complaint (discrimination based on denial of family/medical leave); she later filed a first amended complaint alleging six FEHA causes of action and proceeded to court for summary judgment which denied relief on exhaustion and merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wills exhausted FEHA administrative remedies for all claims | Wills contends administrative filings and DFEH investigation would uncover disability claims. | OC Court argues only the leave-denial claim was exhausted; others not raised or linked to the investigation. | Wills exhausted only the disability claim; second–sixth were not exhausted. |
| Whether FEHA allows distinguishing disability-caused misconduct from the disability itself in cases involving threats or violence | Disability-caused misconduct is part of the disability; termination for such conduct violates FEHA. | Employer may terminate for threats/violence even if caused by a disability; misconduct can be a legitimate nondiscriminatory basis. | FEHA permits distinguishing disability-caused misconduct from disability when threats/violence against coworkers are involved. |
| Application of McDonnell Douglas framework to disability-discrimination claim when misconduct occurred due to disability | Misconduct tied to disability should preclude enforcement of termination; pretext should be shown. | Employer's ground (policy violation) is legitimate and nondiscriminatory; pretext not shown. | Employer’s ground was legitimate; Wills failed to prove pretext or discriminatory motive. |
| Was the trial court correct in granting summary judgment on the merits given the above | Disability-discrimination claims survive with facts showing a connection to disability. | Discharge based on policy-violating conduct is nondiscriminatory and not disability-based. | Yes; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Did the court err in not addressing all FEHA claims beyond exhaustion and disability discrimination | All six FEHA claims should be considered. | Court may decide on exhaustion and discrimination separately; ample basis supports judgment. | No reversible error; judgment affirmed on both exhaustion and merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (scope of FEHA action limited to what is within the EEOC/DFEH investigation)
- Den Hartog v. Wasatch Academy, 129 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 1997) (distinguishes disability vs. disability-caused misconduct in ADA context; discusses direct threat)
- Sista v. CDC Ixis North America, Inc., 445 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2006) (misconduct involving threats/violence can be legitimate nondiscriminatory reason under McDonnell Douglas)
- Gambini v. Total Renal Care, Inc., 486 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2007) (conduct caused by disability; threats/violence context not directly addressed; distinguishes level of threat)
- Palmer v. Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, 117 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 1997) (employer not required to retain potentially violent employee under ADA)
- Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Ass'n, 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (discusses disability-related conduct and general rule of treating conduct vs. disability)
- Dark v. Curry County, 451 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2006) (epilepsy context; not directly about threats but about disability-related conduct)