The California Court of Appeals recently found that a reduction in force (RIF) is not necessarily a sufficient reason to terminate an older worker. As a result, the Court revived a former Pacific World Corp. customer service manager’s age discrimination claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). However, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the remaining two claims — disability discrimination and failure-to-accommodate. The case is Fitzpatrick v. Pacific World Corp., Cal. Ct. App., No. G061797 (July 10, 2024).
The plaintiff, who was in her early sixties, was training a younger male coworker to take her place when she retired in a few years. In her position as customer service manager, she reported to the vice president of operations and supervised six employees.
The plaintiff’s doctor informed her in August 2019 that she needed reconstructive surgery on her foot. She planned the surgery for September 2019, but due to a difficult transition occurring at work, the vice president asked her to postpone her surgery, which she did.
After undergoing surgery in October 2019, the plaintiff had restrictions from walking or standing. She also had to keep her left leg elevated as much as possible, which was made difficult by her small cubicle at the workplace. Her awkward seating position led to back pain, so she requested a keyboard tray and lumbar support pillow, which the employer provided. Eventually, she requested to work from home, which the employer allowed.
Pacific World began to experience financial difficulties and ultimately laid off 85% of its global workforce. The company reduced its U.S. workforce from 108 to 62 employees and laid off the plaintiff on May 4, 2020. However, the company retained the younger male coworker the plaintiff had been training, moved him to the plaintiff’s former position with many of the same responsibilities, and gave him a raise. The company vice president made the decision to lay off the plaintiff, whom he knew was nearing retirement.
Although Pacific World argued that the younger coworker’s job was significantly different than the plaintiff’s, in that he supervised fewer people and no longer was responsible for some of the same strategic duties, the Court disagreed. The Court found that sufficient evidence existed that the younger coworker moved into the same customer service manager position that the plaintiff held after she was laid off, with insubstantial differences. As a result, the Court ruled that the age discrimination claim was a matter for the jury to decide.
However, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim. The Court found that while Pacific World had a financial incentive to retain a younger employee over an older employee who was closer to retirement, there was no similar motive to suggest disability discrimination.
Likewise, the Court ruled that no violation of FEHA existed where a critical employee suffered no harm because of a brief delay in surgery. The surgery was unnecessary, and the plaintiff did not object to the delay. Furthermore, the plaintiff never objected to working from home and never asked to use a larger vacant office to accommodate her restrictions better. As a result, the Court upheld the dismissal of the failure-to-accommodate claim.
HBL has experience in all areas of benefits and employment law, offering a comprehensive solution to all your business benefits and H.R./employment needs. We help ensure you are in compliance with the complex requirements of ERISA and the IRS code, as well as those laws that impact you and your employees. Together, we reduce your exposure to potential legal or financial penalties. Learn more by calling 470-571-1007.