Years ago, my firm represented an employee who was fired after he got a permanent partial disability due to a workplace injury. The employer reasoned that he was a potential “liability” because he could not fully meet all the physical requirements of his sales job, even though the employee had never been asked to perform those supposed physical requirements in his many years at the company. A recent case from the California Court of Appeal reminds us of the protections provided to employees against using arbitrary physical job requirements to discriminate against persons with disability limitations that are seen as damaged goods by an employer.
In Price v. Victor Valley Union High School District (2022) 85 Cal. App. 5th 231, Plaintiff La Vonya Price suffered from a partial disability due to a prior stroke.. Despite limitations to her mobility and strength, Ms. Price had worked as a part-time substitute education aide with the school district. As the part-time position did not require her to take or pass a physical examination, she did not initially disclose her physical limitations to her employer.
After several years in the part-time position, Ms. Price then applied for a full-time position as a para-educator and the school district hired her, contingent on the district requirement that she take and pass a physical examination. During the examination, Ms. Price disclosed her medical history and the limitations she had due to her stroke. The medical examiner concluded that Ms. Price had balance and strength deficits that made her a “fall risk,” and that she would not be suitable for the position. The school district then rescinded their offer to hire Ms. Price for the full-time para-educator position. They also terminated and informed her that she would not be considered for any future positions with the school district. Ms. Price testified that when she met with a school district representative to ask for an explanation, she was told that she was a “liability.”
The Court of Appeal ruled that a reasonable jury could conclude that Ms. Price suffered unlawful disability discrimination in this instance. The court rejected the employer’s contention that Ms. Price’s physical limitations absolutely prevented her from performing the essential functions of her job, noting that she had successfully performed the same essential functions for the school district. The Court of Appeal further ruled that evidence that the school district had considered Ms. Price “a liability” in making their determination could support a finding that the school district discriminated against Ms. Price due to her disability.
California law is clear that persons with disabilities should receive a fair chance to be contributing members of the workforce. The fact that a person has some physical limitations cannot be used as an excuse to deprive them of that fair chance based on physical tests or job requirements that may not even be part of their actual work tasks. Our employee client in a separate and prior case availed of this fundamental protection and successfully litigated his unlawful termination and disability discrimination claim.
* * *
The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Asian Journal, its management, editorial board and staff.
* * *
The Law Offices of C. Joe Sayas, Jr. welcomes inquiries about this topic. All inquiries are confidential and at no-cost. You can contact the office at (818) 291-0088 or visit www.joesayaslaw.com. [For more than 25 years, C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. successfully recovered wages and other monetary damages for thousands of employees and consumers. He was named Top Labor & Employment Attorney in California by the Daily Journal, selected as Super Lawyer by the Los Angeles Magazine for 11 years, and is a past Presidential Awardee for Outstanding Filipino Overseas.]
(Advertising Supplement)
