Why it matters
Where an employee explained his need for leave only by saying it was “personal” and failed to explain he underwent surgery during his absence or to provide a doctor’s note, he cannot hold his employer liable for disability discrimination under state law, a California federal court has ruled. Ryan Brown was fired after almost 25 years of employment with a winery for excessive absences. The final straw came in 2016 when he initially reported an absence as “FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] pending.” But he then informed his employer the absence was personal even though he underwent surgery for a cyst. Despite several warnings about his absences, Brown did not provide documentation or doctor’s notes for the leave and was terminated. He sued under state law, alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and wrongful discharge. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the winery, holding that the plaintiff presented no evidence that his employer knew or perceived that Brown suffered from a disability, particularly considering that he described his need for leave as personal.
Detailed discussion
Ryan Brown began working for Constellation Brands, Inc. (CBI), in July 1992. In 2015, he developed a chronic medical condition and requested intermittent medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for his condition. CBI granted the request. Brown knew that reporting potential absences to CBI included calls to both the company’s human resources (HR) department and Liberty Mutual, its third-party leave vendor.
In June 2016, Brown required emergency surgery for a serious medical condition. Initially, he told CBI that the leave was “FMLA pending.” The next day, however, he informed HR that his absence for the coming week was “personal.” Brown did not tell anyone that he took time off for surgery, and he did not inform Liberty Mutual that he wanted FMLA leave for his absences.
The company’s attendance policy stated CBI could terminate an employee if he or she incurred nine instances of absenteeism. In August, CBI disciplined Brown for having too many attendance infractions, citing his absences in June and July.
Brown complained, arguing that some of the infractions against him occurred when he was on medical leave due to the emergency surgery, but he did not provide a doctor’s note or any other paperwork. CBI terminated Brown in September for violations of its attendance policy.
Alleging that the absences were a pretextual reason for his termination and that he was actually fired because CBI perceived him as disabled and unable to perform his job duties, Brown filed suit against his former employer. He claimed CBI discriminated against him based on his disability or perceived disability, failed to accommodate his disability, and retaliated against him for requesting accommodation, among other causes of action.
CBI moved for summary judgment, and U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe granted the motion.
The court first determined that the employer demonstrated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Brown’s termination: his violation of the company’s attendance policy. “The record demonstrates that Plaintiff incurred numerous attendance infractions, and the absences at issue … were unexcused,” the court said. “It also is undisputed that Plaintiff designated his leave as ‘personal’ … and he did not request FMLA leave through Liberty Mutual for any of the dates … despite his awareness of the relevant procedures.”
Shifting to Brown to introduce evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether CBI’s reason was pretextual, the court found the plaintiff failed to meet his burden.
“A reasonable trier of fact could not conclude that Plaintiff’s verbal request for ‘personal’ leave for [the dates at issue], without more, was sufficient to put CBI on notice that he required or sought FMLA leave,” Judge McAuliffe wrote. “Plaintiff presents no evidence that he ever informed Liberty Mutual (or CBI) that he had a new condition unrelated to his stomach ailments for which he could already take intermittent leave or that CBI knew that Plaintiff sought FMLA leave for any other condition. Indeed, Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not specifically tell CBI that he had emergency surgery to remove an abscess.”
Brown argued that he initially characterized the leave in question as “FMLA pending,” which was enough to create a triable issue of fact. But the court disagreed, noting that Brown himself called the leave “personal” and did not inform CBI or Liberty Mutual of the surgery, the court said.
Further, when he returned to work, he did not produce a doctor’s note excusing his absences, nor did he produce any medical documentation until after his termination, the court said, and it was undisputed that Brown was aware of CBI’s policies and procedures to take FMLA leave.
“Accordingly, CBI is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s first cause of action for disability discrimination,” the judge wrote. “The remainder of Plaintiff’s complaint is based upon alleged disability discrimination, and because CBI is entitled to summary judgment on that claim, the Court finds that CBI is entitled to summary judgment on the remainder of his claims.”
To read the order in Brown v. Constellation Brands, Inc., click here.
