Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc

In Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1237, after the employer informed the plaintiff that he was terminated, the plaintiff told his employer that he missed work because he had been hospitalized with acute pancreatitis, and submitted documentation of his hospitalization to his employer the following day. (Id. at pp. 1245, 1251.) The Avila court explained that "None of this evidence assists the plaintiff. Evidence that a decision maker learned of a plaintiff's disability after deciding to take adverse employment action is not probative of whether the decision maker was aware of the plaintiff's disability when he or she made the decision. Such evidence is irrelevant to determining whether the decision maker acted from a discriminatory animus." (Id. at p. 1251.) The plaintiff had worked for the employer for seven years and was terminated because he missed seven days of work during the preceding year in violation of company policy. (Ibid.) Four of his absences were due to his hospitalization for acute pancreatitis. (Id. at p. 1244.) When he returned from his hospital stay, the plaintiff provided hospital forms to his employer showing that he had been hospitalized for three days, without explanation of the reason. (Ibid.) When he was terminated, the plaintiff sued the employer for violations of the FEHA, alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability. (Id. at p. 1245.) The employee claimed he should not have been charged with four of the absences because they were attributable to his pancreatitis and constituted a disability under the FEHA. (Id. at pp. 1248-1250.) The court affirmed summary judgment of the employee's FEHA claims in favor of his employer, explaining that the hospital forms showing only that the employee had been hospitalized for three days, with no description of the medical reason, were insufficient to put the company on notice of his disability. (Avila, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1248-1250.) The hospital forms "did not identify plaintiff's illness 'let alone a "disability."'" (Id. at p. 1248.) "The forms communicated only that plaintiff was unable to work on four workdays . . . due to an unspecified condition, and that plaintiff was hospitalized for three days. The forms did not specify that plaintiff suffered from pancreatitis or any other condition that qualified as a disability under section 12926, subdivision (k). Informing the employer merely that plaintiff had been hospitalized was not sufficient to put the employer on notice that plaintiff was suffering from a qualifying disability." (Id. at p. 1249.) In sum, the plaintiff provided the employer with two doctors' notes indicating he was ill, had been hospitalized, and needed four days off. (Id. at p. 1249.) The notes did not identify any disability or work restrictions that required accommodation. (Ibid.) The superior court granted summary judgment, finding the notes did not identify the employee's illness, "let alone a disability" that required accommodation. (Id. at pp. 1247-1248.) The Court of Appeal affirmed, determining the employee failed to put the employer on notice that he had a disability or needed an accommodation, and as such, there was no requirement to engage in the interactive process. (Id. at pp. 1248-1249.)