Caltrans liable for not addressing accommodation requests

by Nisha Verma, Esq., Ogletree Deakins, Orange County

The California Court of Appeal has upheld a jury’s verdict finding the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) liable for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation and failure to engage in the interactive process.

The case is Kamali v. California Department of Transportation (No. B247756, Court of Appeal of California, 2015).

Multiple transfer requests

Khosrow Kamali worked for several years as a civil engineer in Caltrans’ Office of Traffic Investigation. Beginning in 2007, he made several requests to be transferred to another Caltrans department as a result of work-related stress, depression and anxiety.

All his requests were denied.

Kamali claimed his supervisor caused much of his stress. In early 2007, after a shouting match between the two, Kamali contacted his boss’s supervisor and requested a transfer to another Caltrans office. After several meetings regarding the incident, and after Kamali had taken leave to deal with increasing anxiety, the transfer request was denied. Kamali then sent an email to the next highest person in the chain of command, unsuccessfully renewing his request for a transfer.

Shortly afterward, another employee who had complained about Kamali’s supervisor was granted a transfer to another department.

New boss, same department

In 2008, Kamali’s department was reorganized, and he was placed under a different direct supervisor.

Throughout 2008 and 2009, he repeatedly requested transfers, but did not receive one.

Kamali eventually complained to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), presenting a doctor’s note stating that he needed a transfer because of stress-related mental disability.

In 2010, Kamali was approved for a one-year medical leave of absence.

Upon his return in 2011, he submitted another letter from his doctor stating that he was unable to work with the supervisors in his department, but that “Mr. Kamali’s medical condition does not prevent him from working for any supervisor.”

Kamali asked to be allowed to telecommute and only come to the workplace when needed for meetings or “business necessity.” Caltrans rejected that request, too, and assigned him to another supervisor, albeit in the same department where he had always worked.

Accommodation claim

That’s when Kamali filed a lawsuit against Caltrans, alleging failure to provide a reasonable accommodation and failure to engage in the interactive process. A jury found in Kamali’s favor.

On appeal, Caltrans argued that Kamali had no mental disability; he just wanted a different supervisor. Caltrans relied on a 1996 federal case in which the 7th Circuit Court concluded that where an employee was only unable to perform her job for one supervisor, but could do the work for other supervisors, the employee was not “disabled” under the ADA.

California trumps federal law

The Kamali court rejected Caltrans’ argument, explaining that this is one of the instances in which California law affords greater protection than federal law. The court noted that under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a mental disability is one “that limits a major life activity.” The stricter ADA defines it as one that “‘substantially limits’” a person from participating in major life activities.

The court rejected Caltrans’s policy arguments that “upholding the jury’s verdict would send a message that any employee who does not like his or her supervisor can merely get a doctor’s note that the employee was suffering stress from the supervisor and needed a new transfer.”

The court was also unimpressed with Caltrans’ argument that it satisfied any duty it had to provide a reasonable accommodation to Kamali by allowing him to take extended leave—615 workdays—while keeping his job open.

The court explained that in this situation, where Kamali had asked for a specific accommodation that could have alleviated his condition, the leave of absence was insufficient to address his needs. In taking his leaves of absence, the court wrote, “Kamali lost wages, benefits and sick pay for his 615 leave days. He would not have suffered those losses if his request to transfer … had been facilitated.”

What it means for employers

The Kamali case serves as a reminder to employers that in certain circumstances, stress, depression and anxiety arising from the work environment can constitute a disability and trigger the protections of FEHA.

It also demonstrates that delaying an accommodation can create liability, as can indications that an employer failed to actively engage in the interactive process.

To avoid liability, ensure that you have protocols in place to carefully review and document accommodation requests, including those based on mental disability. Make sure you have an appropriate interactive process to assess and address those requests.