In Lawler v. Montblanc, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of an employer where the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to substantiate claims for disability discrimination, retaliation, and harassment.
Montblanc North America, LLC makes luxury products and sells them wholesale and in boutique stores. The company employed plaintiff Cynthia Lawler as a store manager with a staff of six; her duties included hiring, training, supervising sales staff, administering stocking and inventory, creating displays, and preparing sales reports, all of which had to be performed in the store.
Lawler worked between 60 and 70 hours per week during the holiday season. On June 30, she was diagnosed with arthritis, and her doctor recommended limiting her work to twenty hours per week; Lawler requested that schedule on July 23.
Montblanc asked Lawler to provide information about the nature, severity, duration of her impairment, and what accommodations could enable her to perform the essential functions of her job. A few days later she fractured her foot related to the arthritis and her doctor advised she not return to work until early September.
During a return visit to fax paperwork to Montblanc's disability insurer, the company's president conducted a routine inspection, criticized her attire and merchandise displays, became angry when she tried to explain the displays, had her walk around the store, and demanded a detailed report.
Lawler complained to human resources about the president's "abrupt," "gruff," and "intimidating" behavior, but the representative did not investigate the allegations.
Her doctor later recommended extended leave until early January, and Montblanc requested further information from the doctor about reasonable accommodations and a return date; the doctor replied that Lawler's status had not changed and she needed to remain on leave.
On October 31 Montblanc terminated Lawler's employment, explaining that a store manager needed to be in regular attendance during the firm's most critical sales period and she would be unable to return in time.
Lawler sued for disability discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for Montblanc, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
On the discrimination claim, the court held that Lawler admitted her disability made it impossible for her to fulfill the duties of a store manager, with or without accommodation, and therefore she could not prove she was a "qualified" individual for the position.
The court also affirmed summary judgment on the retaliation claim, finding Montblanc had a legitimate reason for termination because she could not perform managerial duties during the busiest season. The harassment claim failed as a matter of law because the president's conduct related to store operations and personnel management rather than actionable harassment.
The court further affirmed summary judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, concluding that the alleged "gruff" and "abrupt" conduct did not exceed the bounds tolerated in a civilized community and was tied to business operations and performance management.
Employers and property managers looking for related resources on discrimination and liability may consult Tenant Discrimination Liability Insurance for Property Managers for practical information on managing these risks.
For broader context on employment discrimination issues and company responses, see In-N-Out Burger and Employment Discrimination Cases.
Article courtesy of Thomas Ingrassia of Petit Kohn.
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes an employee "qualified" under disability discrimination law?
An employee is "qualified" if they can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation, as determined by the job's actual requirements.
When must an employer provide a reasonable accommodation?
An employer must provide reasonable accommodations when an employee has a disability and the accommodation enables performance of essential job duties, unless doing so creates undue hardship for the employer.
Is being rude or abrupt to an employee usually enough for a harassment claim?
Simple rudeness or performance-related criticism typically does not meet the legal standard for actionable harassment; courts look for severe or pervasive conduct creating a hostile work environment.
Can an employer lawfully terminate an employee who cannot return from a medically authorized leave in time for a critical period?
An employer may have a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to replace an employee if the absence prevents performance of essential duties during critical business periods, but each case depends on the facts and applicable law.
What steps should an employee take if they believe their rights were violated?
An employee should document communications and seek guidance from a qualified employment attorney or a relevant government agency to understand options and deadlines for filing claims.