On August 16, 2011, in Rogers v. County of Los Angeles, B217764, slip op. (2d App. Dist., Div. 2), the California Court of Appeal held that employees are not entitled to reinstatement of their jobs if they return to work after expiration of the 12-week leave period protected under the California Family Rights Act of 1993 (CFRA).
The CFRA entitles eligible employees to take a protected unpaid
leave for up to 12 workweeks in a 12-month period for family care
and medical leave to care for their children, parents, or spouses,
or to recover from their own serious health condition. An employee
who takes CFRA leave is guaranteed that taking such leave will not
result in a loss of job security or any other adverse employment
actions. Upon the employee's timely return from CFRA leave, an
employer generally must restore the employee to the same or a
comparable position.
In Rogers, the plaintiff had worked for the County of Los
Angeles for many years as a personnel officer in the executive
office, which was responsible for rendering administrative and
other support services to the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors and its various commissions. On April 3, 2006,
plaintiff went on medical leave for "work-related
stress," which she claimed resulted from some unidentified
"attack on [her] integrity." She claimed this
"stress" manifested in her "crying at work, not
being able to sleep or eat, and causing her blood pressure to
become 'out of whack.'" Plaintiff remained off work
for a total of 19 weeks.
In May 2006, the County appointed a new director of the executive
office. The new director determined that changes needed to be made
to the structure of the office to make it run more efficiently. As
part of the new director's efforts to streamline the
organization, she decided to bring in a new personnel officer in
place of plaintiff because she "felt that somebody outside the
organization would come in and would be independent, objective,
maybe perhaps could provide some fresh eyes into the
organization." The uncontroverted evidence established that
the decision had "absolutely" nothing to do with
plaintiff taking a protected medical leave.
Upon returning to work following her leave, plaintiff was assigned
to a high-level human resources position in a different department
that was specially created for plaintiff. The County effectively
conceded that the position involved "very different" job
duties and was therefore not "comparable" to
plaintiff's previous position, although plaintiff's pay
would not have been reduced and she would not have lost any salary
or benefits upon her return. However, plaintiff refused to accept
the new position, claiming that it was a "demotion" and a
"slap in the face," and that she was
"devastated," "embarrassed,"
"humiliated," "hurt," and
"disappointed" by the proposed transfer. She filed suit,
alleging two primary claims: (1) that the County interfered with
her CFRA reinstatement rights; and (2) that the County retaliated
against her for exercising her rights under the CFRA.
After a jury trial, plaintiff prevailed on both claims, and was
awarded damages in the amount of $356,000. On appeal, the Court
reversed. First, the Court held that the County could not legally
have interfered with plaintiff's CFRA reinstatement right
because an employee has such a right only when he or she returns to
work "on or before the expiration of the 12-week protected
leave" period. Here, it was undisputed that plaintiff did not
return to work within the applicable 12‑week period.
Accordingly, the County had no obligation at all to reinstate
plaintiff or to assign her to a "comparable" position.
The Court also noted that the result would be the same under the
CFRA's federal counterpart, the Family Medical Leave Act
(FMLA). Because plaintiff did not return during the protected
period, it ultimately made no difference that the decision to
transfer plaintiff was made during the 12-week protected leave
period.
Second, the Court held that there was no evidence of retaliation,
i.e., that "the taking of medical leave was a
motivating reason for the County's decision to transfer
[plaintiff]." In fact, the evidence put forth at trial
established the opposite: that the director's decision to
reassign plaintiff was based solely on her plan to reorganize the
executive office. Simply put, the County did not fail to comply
with its obligations under the CFRA.
Employers may want to review their handbooks and other
employment-related policies in which they address CFRA and similar
leaves of absence to determine whether any changes should be made
in light of the holding in Rogers v. County of Los
Angeles.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.