Romero v. Tribune Media Company

Summary

The Eastern District of California addressed Tribune Media Company’s motion to dismiss claims arising from Sergio Romero’s termination during medical leave related to stomach cancer. The court denied dismissal of claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, FEHA disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process. The court dismissed the FEHA retaliation claim and struck the request for punitive damages, denying leave to amend those matters as futile.

Holdings

1. The First Amended Complaint plausibly stated a FEHA disability-discrimination claim because it alleged a covered disability, qualification to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation, and termination under circumstances supporting an inference that the termination was because of the disability.
2. The First Amended Complaint plausibly stated a FEHA failure-to-accommodate claim by alleging that Romero had a covered disability, was qualified to perform the essential functions of his position, and requested unpaid medical leave as a reasonable accommodation that Tribune failed to provide or maintain.
3. The First Amended Complaint plausibly stated a FEHA interactive-process claim by alleging a known disability, notice to the employer, communications concerning accommodation and leave, and the employer's failure to communicate adequately regarding the end of leave before terminating Romero.
4. The First Amended Complaint failed to state a FEHA retaliation claim because it alleged requests for accommodation and leave but did not allege that Romero opposed an employer practice prohibited by FEHA or otherwise engaged in protected opposition activity.
5. The wrongful-termination claim survived because the adequately pleaded FEHA discrimination claim supplied a public-policy basis for the derivative common-law claim.
6. The request for punitive damages was stricken because the complaint did not adequately allege facts showing that an officer, director, or managing agent of Tribune was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice or ratified such conduct.
7. Leave to amend was denied as futile as to the FEHA retaliation claim and the punitive-damages request.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the First Amended Complaint plausibly stated a FEHA disability and medical-condition discrimination claim.
2. Whether the First Amended Complaint plausibly stated a FEHA failure-to-accommodate claim.
3. Whether the First Amended Complaint plausibly stated a FEHA failure-to-engage-in-the-interactive-process claim.
4. Whether the First Amended Complaint plausibly stated a FEHA retaliation claim based on Romero's requests for medical leave and an extension of leave.
5. Whether the alleged FEHA discrimination claim supported a common-law wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim.
6. Whether Romero adequately pleaded a basis for punitive damages against the corporate defendant.
7. Whether leave to amend should be granted as to the dismissed retaliation claim and punitive-damages request.

Disposition

other