California Employment Law Notes - May 2015

Employer Can Recover Its Costs And Attorney's Fees From Plaintiff Who Prosecuted "Objectively Groundless" FEHA Action

Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist., 2015 WL 1964947 (Cal. S. Ct. 2015)

Loring Winn Williams sued the District for employment discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the District and awarded the District its court costs in the amount of $5,368.88 (the District did not request reimbursement of its attorneys' fees). Although the trial court awarded costs to the District, the trial court failed to make any finding that plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable or groundless as required for a defendant's recovery of attorney's fees in federal civil rights actions under the authority of Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978). In this opinion, the California Supreme Court expressly adopted the Christiansburg standard, which provides as follows: "...a prevailing plaintiff should ordinarily receive his or her costs and attorney fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust... A prevailing defendant, however, should not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds the action was objectively without foundation when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so." The Court remanded the matter for further proceedings to determine whether the action was objectively groundless.

Pregnant UPS Driver Could Proceed With Challenge To Employer's Failure To Accommodate

Young v. United Parcel Serv., 575 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1338 (2015)

Peggy Young worked as a part-time driver for UPS. After suffering several miscarriages, Young became pregnant. Her doctor told her that she should not lift more than 20 lbs. during the first 20 weeks of her pregnancy or more than 10 lbs. thereafter. UPS required drivers like Young to be able to lift parcels weighing up to 70 lbs. and up to 150 lbs. with assistance. UPS told Young that she could not work while under a lifting restriction, and Young stayed home without pay during most of the time she was pregnant and eventually lost her employee medical coverage. In the lawsuit that followed, Young asserted that UPS had accommodated other drivers who were "similar in their... inability to work" and alleged that UPS' failure to provide such an accommodation to her violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act ("PDA"). UPS responded that the "other persons" whom it had accommodated were drivers who (1) had become disabled on the job; (2) had lost their Department of Transportation certifications; and (3) suffered from a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. UPS contended that because Young did not fall within any of those categories, she had not been discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy but had been treated the same way it treated all other employees not in those categories.

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of UPS, but in this opinion, the United States Supreme Court vacated that judgment, holding that a plaintiff such as Young may make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment under the PDA...