Insights
Publications

Supervisor-Caused Stress is Not a “Disability” under the FEHA

6/1/2015 Articles

The inability to work under a particular supervisor because of anxiety and stress related to the supervisor’s standard oversight of job performance is not a disability recognized under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). A California Court of Appeal panel so held last week in a unanimous decision, Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Medical Foundation.

The defendant employer, Sutter Medical Foundation, had hired plaintiff as a clinical assistant in September 2007.  In June 2010, plaintiff reported to her treating physician, Alexander Chen, M.D., that she was stressed because of interactions at work with human resources and her manager.  Dr. Chen diagnosed plaintiff as having adjustment disorder with anxiety.  Based on Dr. Chen’s diagnosis, Sutter granted plaintiff a stress-related disability leave of absence under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The month-long leave exhausted her available CFRA and FMLA leave entitlements. 

When plaintiff returned to work, she received a negative performance evaluation from her supervisor, which was also signed by a regional manager; this was plaintiff’s only negative evaluation while employed at Sutter.  According to plaintiff, the regional manager began singling plaintiff out for negative treatment, treating her poorly compared to plaintiff’s coworkers and giving her a disproportionate share of work.  Plaintiff also alleged that her supervisor had inaccurately accused her of being irresponsible in caring for her identification badge, and that the regional manager had grabbed plaintiff’s arm and yelled at her.  Plaintiff suffered a panic attack after the latter incident, left work, and never returned.

Sutter granted plaintiff subsequent leaves of absence and engaged with plaintiff in the interactive process.  Plaintiff’s only alleged disability continued to be her adjustment disorder with anxiety. In a status report to Sutter, Dr. Chen stated that plaintiff needed to be transferred out of her current department under a different regional manager, and that if such a transfer occurred, plaintiff would be able to function without limitations. Sutter granted another extension of plaintiff’s leave of absence.  However, Sutter refused to assign plaintiff to a new supervisor and ultimately terminated her employment when she failed to produce information supporting her request for additional leave.  Plaintiff sued, alleging violations of the FEHA.

The trial court summarily adjudicated plaintiff’s cause of action for disability discrimination and failure to prevent such discrimination.  The California Court of Appeal affirmed.  It found that the undisputed facts showed that plaintiff was unable to work under her regional manager or her supervisor because of anxiety and stress related to their standard oversight of plaintiff’s job performance.  The court acknowledged that the California Supreme Court has upheld a broader definition of disability under the FEHA than under the federal counterpart, namely, the FEHA requires a “limitation” upon a major life activity, not a “substantial limitation” as the ADA requires.  But, the court affirmed a California Court of Appeal decision, Hobson v. Raychem Corp., 73 Cal. App. 4th 614 (1999), that an employee’s inability to work under a particular supervisor because of stress related to the supervisor’s standard oversight of the employee’s job performance does not constitute a mental disability under the FEHA.

Higgins should halt the surprisingly common practice by plaintiffs of arguing that the FEHA’s more lenient “disability” standard protects employees whose only limitation is their inability to work with an assigned supervisor.  As Sutter did in this case, employers should still engage in the interactive process with an employee who alleges supervisor-related stress.  But if, through the interactive process, it becomes clear that supervisor-related stress is the only basis for the employee’s alleged disability, the employer need not continue to extend leaves of absence and/or grant the employee’s request for a change of supervisor as an accommodation. 

Firm Highlights

Publication

How to Navigate California Wage Statement Penalties After Naranjo v. Spectrum

On May 6, 2024, the California Supreme Court, in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services Inc. , clarified that an employer is not liable for statutory penalties for inaccurate wage statements when it had a...

Read More
Publication

California’s Estrada Decision and Impact on Employers and PAGA Claims

Following Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. , the California Supreme Court’s employee-friendly Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) ruling earlier this year, employers must remain more diligent than ever to prevent and mitigate costly...

Read More
Publication

Navigating California's Evolving Legal Landscape Governing Leaves of Absence

California’s employment laws are no stranger to change, and recent years have witnessed the introduction or modification of various protected leaves by employees. In this article, we will delve into three significant leave categories...

Read More
Publication

Employment Law Update for Nonprofits With Holly Sutton

Welcome to  EO Radio Show - Your Nonprofit Legal Resource . Charities, foundations, and their founders often request help addressing employment practices and compliance questions. In this episode, host Cynthia Rowland is joined by Holly...

Read More
Publication

Important Changes and the Impact of California Industry-Specific Minimum Wage Laws

In the ever-evolving landscape of California labor laws, the minimum wage has once again taken center stage. With the recent state-wide increase to $16 per hour, the Golden State continues to lead the nation...

Read More
Publication

Navigating California Wage Statement Penalties After Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

On May 6, 2024, the California Supreme Court, in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. , clarified that an employer is not liable for statutory penalties for inaccurate wage statements when it had a...

Read More
News

Ex-DraftKings Exec Seeks Fast Trial To Test Noncompete Law

Holly Sutton, chair of Farella's Employment Law Group, provided expert commentary to Law360 for the article "Ex-DraftKings Exec Seeks Fast Trial To Test Noncompete Law." Read the article here (subscription required).

Read More
Publication

Navigating Cannabis in the Workplace: A Guide for California Corporations

The landscape surrounding cannabis in the workplace is rapidly evolving, posing challenges for California corporations and businesses to establish effective policies and procedures. As the use of cannabis, both medical and recreational, becomes more...

Read More
Publication

The Components of Effective and Defensible Workplace Investigations

Harassment, discrimination and retaliation are serious workplace threats that demand vigilant attention from employers under state and federal laws. This article explores some high-level yet essential components of effective workplace investigations. By understanding the...

Read More
Publication

A New Overtime Threshold Takes Effect in Mere Weeks: HR Should Assess Its Impact Now

On April 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued its final rule increasing the minimum pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for various exempt “white-collar” employee categories beginning on...

Read More