Blake Wentworth was an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley. The essential functions of his job included teaching, research, and service to the department and profession.
Wentworth was struggling with his mental health. He told one of his colleagues, “his wife was unhappy.” Wentworth told the chair of the department, Jefferey Hadler, that he had been diagnosed with bipolar II disorder. Wentworth later was hospitalized after attempting to commit suicide.
After Wentworth returned to work, Hadler asked to meet to discuss how Wentworth’s disorder affected his ability to do his job. Hadler noted that Wentworth missed a week of class and failed to write a fellowship nomination letter. Hadler said he wanted to explore whether there were any accommodations that would allow Wentworth to fulfill the essential functions of his job. Hadler suggested that Wentworth review the University’s processes for faculty accommodations. Wentworth agreed to meet but initially resisted any suggestion that he needed accommodations. Wentworth insisted that his problems were only because his wife had left him. At this meeting, Wentworth asked Hadler about the possibility of teaching through the end of the semester and then taking research leave. However, the University did not offer research leave.
During the February 2015 meeting, Hadler offered Wentworth a medical leave, which involved: 1) relieving him of all duties; 2) stopping his tenure clock, which would require him to continue to teach and perform other duties, but push back his deadlines for completing a body of research for consideration for tenure purposes; and 3) other accommodations.
In early April 2015, students complained about Wentworth’s behavior. Some of the complaints alleged Wentworth held their hands, talked about his personal life, and said he was attracted to them.
Later in April 2015, Wentworth’s doctors wrote notes: 1) saying that he had a partial disability that prevented him from satisfying the research component of his duties; and 2) requesting to stop his tenure clock for two semesters. In July 2015, the University approved his request for accommodation.
In October 2015, the university investigated Wentworth’s conduct. The investigation concluded that he had violated policies on sexual harassment and failed to meet certain academic responsibilities. As a result, the University terminated Wentworth in May 2017.
From February to April 2016, some of the students who alleged Wentworth had sexually harassed them discussed their experiences with the media. Soon articles were published about Wentworth. The article in the San Francisco Chronicle included a description of a letter department professors had written to the department head regarding Wentworth.
In a faculty-student department meeting in April 2016, the head of the department described the interactive process conversations he had with Wentworth, among other confidential information regarding the complaints against Wentworth.
In September 2016, Wentworth filed an action against the university, alleging several causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (including disability harassment, disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation) and the Information Practices Act (IPA). Wentworth claimed that the University failed to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations for his bipolar disorder, and that it invaded his privacy by leaking information about student complaints and his disability accommodations to the media.
The superior court granted summary adjudication in favor of the University on the claims of failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and invasion of privacy.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s rulings on the interactive process and reasonable accommodation claims because the evidence showed that the university engaged in the interactive process in good faith and offered a reasonable accommodation, which the professor did not assert was inadequate.
The Court reversed the summary adjudication of the invasion of privacy causes of action, finding that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the University violated the IPA. The IPA prohibits state agencies, like the University from disclosing information that identified or described employees like Wenworth, including information about medical or employment history. The letter about student complaints and the discussion at the April 2016 student-faculty meeting contained information regarding Wentworth’s medical and employment history. The University did not dispute that the leaks of information about Wentworth could be attributed to it. The Court held that a reasonable jury could conclude from this evidence that someone in the department leaked the letter to the media to bring attention to Wentworth. The Court of Appeal reversed the grant of summary adjudication on the IPA claim and remanded the matter to the trial court.
Wentworth v. Regents of University of California, 105 Cal.App.5th 580 (2024).