In Faust v. California Portland Cement Co. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 864, the plaintiff was placed on disability leave by his psychiatrist after he suffered panic attacks and severe anxiety at work after his coworkers discovered he had accused them of stealing from their employer. (Faust, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at pp. 869-870.) Shortly before his period of disability leave expired, the plaintiff consulted a chiropractor for treatment of severe back pain he had been experiencing while on leave. (Id. at p. 870.) The chiropractor submitted to the plaintiff's employer a medical certification form, which recommended the plaintiff engage in physiotherapy, chiropractic therapy and rest, and stated: "'the patient is unable to perform regular job duties for one month.'" (Ibid.) The chiropractor did not fill out the form's "Authorization for Absence" section or list any work restrictions. (Id. at p. 871.) The day after the chiropractor submitted the certification form, the plaintiff's employer tried to contact the plaintiff. (Faust, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 870.) The employer believed the form did not clear the plaintiff from work because it was not executed by a physician or medical doctor, it did not explicitly authorize plaintiff's absence from work, and it did not list any medical restrictions. (Ibid.) The employer tried contacting the plaintiff several times by phone and mail. (Ibid.) The plaintiff never returned the employer's calls or responded to the employer's letter, but plaintiff's wife told the employer it could discuss the letter with her, the plaintiff's doctor, or the plaintiff's attorney. (Ibid.) The employer never discussed its concerns about plaintiff's absence with the plaintiff's wife, attorney or doctor. (Ibid.) Several weeks after receiving the chiropractor's letter, and while the plaintiff was still on leave, the employer terminated the plaintiff's employment. (Id. at p. 872.) The plaintiff sued the employer for disability discrimination and retaliation under FEHA. (Faust, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 872.) The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, finding in part that the employer was not aware of the plaintiff's disability. (Id. at pp. 872-876.) The court of appeal reversed, holding that the employer was aware of the plaintiff's back condition. (Id. at pp. 886-887.) The court held that the chiropractor's statement that the plaintiff was "unable to perform regular job duties," coupled with the recommendation that the plaintiff remain off work, put the employer on notice of the plaintiff's disability. (Id. at p. 887.)