In Wallace v. County of Stanislaus the California Court of Appeals recently ruled on “how to instruct a jury on the employer’s intent to discriminate against a disabled employee and, more specifically,
what role ‘animus’ plays in defining that intent.”
Deputy Sheriff Wallace claimed the County of Stanislaus discriminated against him because of a disability after it placed him on an unpaid leave of absence. The County believed Wallace could not safely perform his bailiff duties with or without accommodation.
The Court of Appeal held where there is only circumstantial evidence of an employer’s discriminatory motive, proof of motive follows a three-step burden shifting test, but where there is “direct evidence of the role of the employee’s actual or perceived disability in the employer’s decision to implement an adverse employment action” it only need be proven “that the motive for the employer’s conduct was related to the employee’s physical or mental condition.”
In such direct evidence cases if the employee’s disability was a substantial motivating factor in the adverse employment action decision the employee need not show any additional animus.
In Wallace no one disputed the County’s mistaken perception that Wallace could not perform the essential functions of the job was a substantial motivating factor for its decision to place Wallace on unpaid leave or that the employment decision
caused Wallace economic harm.
If an employer perceives an employee is struggling the employer should not immediately dismiss or demote the employee, or make any employment decisions about the employment without first exploring accommodation for the employee’s perceived disability. Any prospective employment decision to change the terms of an employee’s job or engagement should be discussed with legal counsel before any action is taken.
As Wallace shows, an employer can be right and make an employment decision to assure the work is done correctly and yet, still be found liable for disability discrimination.
The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.
Leave a Reply