The California Supreme Court recently issued its long-awaited decision in the tightly contested case of  Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central, 2008 WL 919614 (Cal.).  The Court's decision considered two issues.  First, whether an employer's failure to invoke the California Family Rights Act's ("CFRA") dispute resolution procedures bars the employer from determining the sufficiency of an employee's claim of a serious health condition and their capability of performing their job.  Secondly, whether a full-time employee who continues to work in a similar part-time role during a period of medical leave conclusively establishes their ability to work their normal full-time role.  The plaintiff, Antonina Lonicki, stopped coming to work and requested medical leave after claiming medical problems associated with major depression and work-related stress.  Her employer demanded that Lonicki return to work because it believed her condition did not impede her ability to perform her usual assigned tasks.  Lonicki did not return to work based on the advice of her physicians.  She was ultimately terminated for her failure to report to work on two consecutive days after her available medical leave had expired.

After her termination, Lonicki sued Sutter Health Central alleging wrongful termination and failure to abide by the CFRA's procedures when assessing the validity of an employee's claim for covered leave.  Lonicki based her claim on her employer's failure to obtain the binding medical opinion of a neutral third party health care provider in order to resolve the conflicting diagnoses of her and the employer's physicians.  Lonicki asserted the defendant was barred from claiming she did not suffer from a serious health condition and was capable of performing her usual job. In its decision, consistent with the decisions of the lower courts, the Court rejected Lonicki's argument that this CFRA provision was mandatory.  Instead, the Court explained that the statutory language of the CFRA reflected a legislative intent to offer the employer the choice of obtaining or not obtaining a binding decision from a third health care provider.

The Court, however, overturned the rulings of the lower courts on the issue of whether Lonicki was medically capable of performing her full-time job with the defendant.  The Court held that evidence of Lonicki working a similar part-time role for another employer is not definitive evidence that she was capable of working for the defendant in her usual full-time position.  The Court cited pertinent language from a leading treatise on employment litigation, noting: "A showing that an employee is unable to work in the employee's current job due to a serious health condition is enough to demonstrate incapacity.  The fact that an employee is working for a second employer does not mean he or she is not incapacitated from working in his current job." (Chin et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Employment Litigation 12:266, p. 12-28 (The Rutter Group 2006)).  The Court determined the pertinent question was whether Lonicki was cleared to work the full-time role with Sutter Health Central, not whether or not she could perform a similar role elsewhere.  Further, the Court noted the dissimilarity between the two jobs as her position with the defendant involved a trauma unit and required more hours, while the other was part-time and less strenuous.  Consequently, the Court determined that the sufficiency of Lonicki's medical condition was a question of fact for a jury.

This case illustrates California's adherence to established rulings under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.  Employee protections based on diagnosed medical conditions should not be viewed lightly by employers.  However, California employers should familiarize themselves with the CFRA's provisions to prevent false claims by employees attempting to circumvent these provisions. 

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.