Luis Castro-Ramirez was hired to work as a truck driver by Dependable Highway Express (DHE) in 2010. During his hiring, he told DHE that he had a disabled son who required dialysis every day and he (Ramirez) was responsible for administering the dialysis. He requested his employer that he be given driving assignments that would end his shifts early enough to get home so he can give his son dialysis treatments. Ramirez’ supervisor (Bermudez) accommodated Ramirez’s needs as often as he could by giving him a shift that began before noon. Thus, while the schedules of DHE’s drivers varied from day to day, Ramirez’ typical schedule was from 7:00 a.m., 9:00 or 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. Throughout his employment, Ramirez performed satisfactorily with no problems.
In 2013, the supervisor, Bermudez, was promoted and Ramirez had a new supervisor (Guillen), who reported to Bermudez. Bermudez told Guillen that Ramirez had special needs related to his disabled son and needed to leave early. Bermudez asked Guillen to “work with” Ramirez. However, Guillen changed Ramirez’ schedule. In March 2013, Ramirez complained to Bermudez that Guillen had changed his hours, and he was starting later and finishing later and could not leave to tend to his son. Bermudez told Guillen about Ramirez’s complaint and Guillen indicated he would “work on that.”
However, Guillen continued to assign Ramirez to schedules that prevented him from going home early to his son. Prior to his termination, Guillen assigned Ramirez a shift beginning at 12:00 p.m. Ramirez explained to Guillen that it was too late in the day for him to drive that route because he could not get back in time to administer dialysis to his son by 8:00 p.m. Ramirez requested another route or simply to take that day off. Guillen told Ramirez that if he did not do the route, he was fired. Ramirez said he was sorry, but he could not do it. Guillen told him to return the next day to sign the termination paperwork. Ramirez returned to DHE for three consecutive days after that because he wanted to work. On the third day, another manager told him that he had not worked for three days and “of course” he was terminated.
Ramirez sued the employer for, among other things, associational disability discrimination in violation of California law, because DHE terminated Ramirez due to his association with a disabled family member.
The employer asked the trial court to throw out the case arguing that the employer did not have an obligation to provide Ramirez with a special schedule as an accommodation for his son’s illness. The employer argued that the disability discrimination law applied only to employees who were themselves disabled. The trial court sided with the employer and dismissed Ramirez’s case. Ramirez appealed.
One of the main issues that the California Court of Appeal had to address was the issue of whether the employer had a duty to extend reasonable accommodation to an employee who was not himself disabled but who is “associated” with a disabled person. The court ruled that, under California law, which is more protective of employees, the employer has a duty to extend such a reasonable accommodation to the non-disabled employee.
The court noted that under California law the definition of a “physical disability” embraces association with a physically disabled person. The phrase “‘physical disability’ includes a perception that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have a physical disability. Thus, the law forbids not only discrimination based on a disability, it also forbids discrimination based on a person’s association with another who has a disability.
In the case of Ramirez, the appellate court said that the trial court should not have thrown out the case, but should have allowed a jury to decide whether Ramirez’s son’s disability was a substantial motivating factor for the employer’s termination of Ramirez. In the final analysis, it is the jury which should determine whether the employer should be held liable for disability discrimination.
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.
[C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is an experienced trial attorney who has successfully recovered wages and other monetary relief for thousands of employees and consumers. He is named Top Labor & Employment Attorney in California by the Daily Journal, consistently selected as Super Lawyer by the Los Angeles Magazine, and is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum.]
Back To Top