The California Supreme Court recently ruled that San Francisco based McKesson Corporation inappropriately terminated an employee with a medical condition under its absenteeism policy.  The company sought to implement a complex policy wherein employees receive progressive discipline for absenteeism, but the court ruled the policy failed to allow appropriate consideration to an employee suffering from a medical disability. 

A long term employee of McKesson, Charlene Roby, suddenly began suffering from spontaneous panic attacks, which plagued her even while on the job.  The employer knew of this medical disability but nevertheless followed its policy of providing warnings, suspensions and ultimately termination under the progressive discipline aspects of its standardized absenteeism policy.  The policy did not allow for “unique” circumstances related to employees with disabilities. 

McKesson ultimately terminated Roby for violation of the absenteeism policy and she sued for disability bias as well as harassment. 

Under California’s complex disability protection laws, the jury awarded $3.5 million in compensatory damages as well as $15 million in punitive damages against the employer. 

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which revised the award and decreased the final amount of the award to $3.8 million.

Significance

The lesson in this case is to consider the circumstances when implementing objective policies, particularly with situations involving known medical conditions.  California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing requires employers to engage in an “interactive process” with qualified employees.  In short, this means that an employer has a requirement to work with a qualified employee to accommodate work restrictions or changes that they might need in order to accommodate a disability-all of this in concert with the employee’s physician.  During the jury trial, testimony was provided by medical experts that the onset of these anxiety attacks were sudden and uncontrollable.  The jury found the employer’s rigid requirement to call in at least 24 hours in advance of any tardiness or absence unreasonable.  The employer’s failure to provide any flexibility in its absenteeism policy, combined with a testimony that the employee’s direct supervisor ridiculed the employee about her disability at the workplace, combined to a rather breathtaking jury award.

Even though the higher courts reduced the award significantly, the clear message is that juries and courts expect an employer to apply all policies “reasonably” and accommodate the needs of disabled workers.