News - Tharpe & Howell - Litigation and Transaction Lawyers

Home > News > Employers Must Handle Return To Work Notices With Care

EMPLOYERS MUST HANDLE RETURN TO WORK NOTICES WITH CARE

In Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin, (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, Charles Gelfo worked for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company as a metal fitter. In September of 2000 Gelfo was injured while at work. In October of 2000 he was laid off. As part of a collective bargaining agreement, Gelfo was placed on a recall list making him automatically eligible for rehire as a metal fitter or in a related job classification for up to 5 years.

In May of 2001 Gelfo was released to return to work with restrictions prohibiting repetitive lifting of items over 50 pounds. No metal fitter positions were available at the time.

In September of 2001, Gelfo participated in a class designed to train participants to be plastic parts fabricators and assemblers for Lockheed. Gelfo did not tell anyone involved of his pending workers compensation claim or work restrictions. Gelfo completed the training and was offered a job. Sometime thereafter, the offer was revoked after Lockheed discovered Gelfo’s pending workers compensation claim and work restrictions, and advised Gelfo that the restrictions that had been placed on him by his physician were incompatible with the physical demands of the fabricator position. Gelfo sued Lockheed for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

At trial, Gelfo pursued alternate theories of liability, and argued that Lockheed discriminated against him because he suffered from an actual disability and because the company perceived that he was disabled. After finding that Gelfo could not satisfy the foundational facts to proceed on the basis that he was discriminated for having a disability, the Court considered whether he could demonstrate that he was discriminated against because Lockheed regarded him as having a disability. Of significance, the Court noted that Lockheed had denied Gelfo the position as a fabricator because it perceived that he suffered from a disabling condition that limited his ability to perform the duties of the fabricator position. According to the Court, this act by Lockheed constituted an admission that it withdrew its offer because it “regarded” Gelfo as a person with an injury.

With regard to the failure to accommodate claim, the Court held that the interactive process and accommodation requirements under state and federal law were not just limited to persons who were “actually” disabled. Rather, these statutory protections extended to any person that fell within a statutorily defined “disability” and included persons that were “regarded” by an employer as disabled.

The Court’s ruling will have a significant impact on employers as they try navigate the oftentimes confusing requirements of state and federal interactive process and accommodation requirements. Notably, employers cannot blindly rely on an employee’s stated medical restrictions and conclude that an employee cannot perform essential job functions. Rather, even if it would appear that a physician’s work restrictions would make it impossible for an employee to perform essential job functions, the employer must still communicate with the employee to see if the restrictions actually prevent the employee from performing essential job functions. At the same time, once an employer concludes that the employee is not able to perform essential job functions because of a work injury, the employer has now regarded the employee as a person with a disability, opening the door to disability discrimination claims.

http://

Related Attorney(s):
David S. Binder

Related Practice Area(s):
Employment and Labor Law