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

Five New California Laws Employers Need to Know

California has become a trendsetter when it comes to implementing new laws. The state is often at the forefront of key issues and paves the way for other states to follow in its footsteps. This...

Read More
Publication

Compelling Employees to Arbitration Suddenly Has Less of an Upside

On July 17, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Techs Inc., as to whether employees still have standing to sue for "non-individual" PAGA claims when they have been...

Read More
News

Ripple Effects of the Supreme Court’s 2023 Decision on Affirmative Action

Kelly Matayoshi was quoted in the article "Ripple Effects of the Supreme Court’s 2023 Decision on Affirmative Action" in the Bar Association of San Francisco's fall issue of  San Francisco Attorney Magazine . Read...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law Firms® Rankings

Read More
Publication

Spotlight on Coalition of Immokalee Workers

The American Bar Association Section of Labor and Employment Law has awarded the 2022 Frances Perkins Public Service Award to the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) for its vital decades-long fight for the dignities...

Read More
Publication

Employers Should Review Confidentiality Policies and Severance Agreements in Light of Recent SEC $10 Million Penalty

Both public and private companies should review their confidentiality policies and written agreements in light of recent guidance and enforcement actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). On September 29, 2023, the SEC...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Named to 2023 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thirty-eight Farella Braun + Martel lawyers were named to the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists of top attorneys in Northern California for 2023. 2023 Farella Northern California Super Lawyers: Carly Alameda – Business...

Read More
News

Farella Lawyers Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2024 Edition

Read More
Publication

A Summary of New Laws Coming for California Employers in 2024

In 2023, California has adopted several new employment laws either introducing new employee protections or codifying existing practices into state law. With these changes, employers will need to examine and adjust some of their...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Welcomes Benjamin Buchwalter to Growing Employment Group

Read More