Maria Miller worked as a correctional officer with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). In 2016, she was injured at work. Miller did not return to work while she received treatment. She was placed on an unpaid leave of absence in July 2018.
In August 2018, Miller’s physician determined that she had reached maximum medical improvement and she would be subject to permanent restrictions that precluded her from lifting, pushing, or pulling items over 30 pounds; repetitive bending, twisting, or stooping; and kneeling or squatting. The essential functions of a CDCR correctional officer required many of these physical abilities.
In December 2018, Miller agreed to accept a medical demotion and placement in an alternative position as an accommodation that would permit her to return to work. CDCR identified three potential positions and offered to medically demote her to the position that had the highest salary. Miller failed to show up for two “meet and greet” orientations that CDCR scheduled for her in 2019 pertaining to this new position.
Instead, Miller told CDCR that: she had begun mental health treatment; she had filed a new worker’s compensation claim for stress; and her psychologist prohibited her from being “anywhere near CDCR” while receiving treatment. As of 2019, there was no accommodation available that would have permitted Miller to return to work. She remained employed with CDCR on an unpaid leave of absence while undergoing mental health treatment.
In 2020, Miller sued, alleging that CDCR violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by: disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation. Miller’s original complaint also included a claim for violation of Government Code section 21153, which requires a public employer to apply for a CalPERS disability retirement on an employee’s behalf in certain situations, but Miller voluntarily dismissed that claim. CDCR filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims. The trial court granted CDCR’s motion. Miller appealed.
The California Court of Appeal upheld the grant of summary judgment. As to the disability discrimination claim, the Court found that the “stay away” order Miller’s psychologist gave established that Miller could no longer perform the essential duties of her position at CDCR with or without accommodation.
Miller did not propose any reasonable accommodation during the interactive process, but in court she claimed that the CDCR could have accommodated her by offering to file an application for CalPERS disability retirement on her behalf. The Court of Appeal found that a reasonable accommodation is limited to efforts that facilitate an employee’s return to work. The purpose of a disability retirement is to separate an employee from work. Although the CalPERS retirement law at Government Code section 21153 requires an employer to file for a disability retirement on an employee’s behalf in some circumstances, Miller had voluntarily dismissed her section 21153 claim. The Court said that even if CDCR wrongfully refused to apply for disability benefits on Miller’s behalf, that fact would not have created a material dispute of fact on CDCR’s motion.
Finally, the Court found that Miller’s claim for retaliation failed because there was no evidence that Miller undertook any protected activity, which is an essential element of a retaliation claim. Miller’s complaint alleged that her sole protected activity was becoming disabled. The Court found that neither the involuntary act of becoming disabled, nor the fact that Miller notified the CDCR that she had a disability, was protected activity.
Miller v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 105 Cal.App.5th 261 (2024).
Note: Employers who are assessing how to respond to a disability discrimination claim will find many practice tips in this case.