Abarca v. Citizens of Humanity. Disability Discrimination Under California FEHA

• Oct 16, 2023
• Blog
• Michael Burgis & Associates, P.C

Whoever fights, whoever falls,

Justice conquers evermore.

—Ralph Waldo Emerson

David vs Goliath in California employment law. How a low wage worker won under FEHA

We’ve all heard the saying: “The little guy never wins.” “You can’t fight city hall.” The case of Noe Abarca vs. Citizens of Humanity proves these expressions wrong. Through persistent, patient, and aggressive advocacy, Noe Abarca, a low-wage worker, secured justice against a multimillion-dollar company. This blog post explores the details of this landmark case, the legal protections under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and its broader implications for workers and employers. Whether you’re researching disability discrimination, employment law, or corporate accountability, this comprehensive guide provides valuable insights.

Case Background. Workplace injury, lifting restrictions, and termination timeline

In its Los Angeles facility, Citizens of Humanity makes its principal product, high-end (around $200 a pair) denim jeans and apparel. During the trial in this case, Citizens had a net worth of about $199 million and employed approximately 500 workers, many of them low-income individuals.

Employee role and job duties. Quality control work and lifting requirements

In 2006, Citizens employed Noe Abarca, then a 57-year-old Spanish-speaking worker, as a quality control inspector. In addition to his inspection duties, Abarca was expected to lift boxes of apparel, some weighing as much as 50 pounds.

Work injury symptoms and medical restrictions. Pain, lifting limits, and requested accommodations

In July of 2006, Abarca began to experience pain in his chest and clavicle area when lifting boxes. Eventually, the pain became unbearable. His immediate supervisor told him to see a doctor and referred him to the Citizens’ Human Resources department. Abarca’s doctor issued written work restrictions, limiting Abarca’s lifting capacity to 15-20 pounds for 30 days. For a month thereafter, Abarca was instructed to only lift boxes weighing twenty pounds or less. He complied with this accommodation.

Termination after restrictions expired. Disputed documents and disability benefits

Two days after the doctor’s work restriction order expired, and despite Abarca’s willingness to continue inspecting jeans and his continuing complaints of pain, Citizens terminated Abarca’s employment. During the termination meeting, Abarca was forced to sign Workers’ Compensation documents stating that he only reported his injury to Citizens after his termination. Thereafter, Abarca applied for and was approved for State Disability benefits.

Financial impact after disability benefits ended

After the disability benefits expired, Abarca, who is the sole supporter of his daughter, resorted to collecting and recycling cans and bottles to get by.

Legal claims and representation. Workers’ comp and civil disability discrimination case

Luckily, Abarca retained the law firm of Michael Burgis & Associates (MB&A) to pursue Workers’ Compensation and civil claims against Citizens. The civil suit claimed that Citizens had unlawfully discriminated against and wrongfully discharged Abarca due to his disability. Following several years of hard-fought pretrial litigation and unsuccessful settlement attempts, MB&A retained the help of law firm Kramer Holcomb Sheik to prepare the case for trial. At trial, the jury ruled in favor of Abarca, awarding $100,000 in compensatory damages and $550,000 in punitive damages, finding that Citizens acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.

California FEHA explained. Disability discrimination, reasonable accommodation, and the interactive process

To understand the significance of the Abarca case, it’s essential to know the legal framework governing disability discrimination in California. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), enacted in 1959 and codified in California Government Code §§12900-12996, is a cornerstone of civil rights legislation. It prohibits discrimination and harassment in employment and housing based on protected characteristics, including disability.

What FEHA protects. Broad disability definition and employer obligations

• Broad Definition of Disability: FEHA defines disability as any physical or mental impairment that limits a major life activity, such as working, walking, or lifting. This includes conditions like chronic pain, cancer, HIV/AIDS, and mental health disorders. Unlike the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which applies to employers with 15 or more employees, FEHA covers employers with five or more employees, offering broader protections.

Reasonable accommodation and the interactive process. Where employers get exposed

• Reasonable Accommodations: Employers must engage in an interactive process to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, unless doing so causes undue hardship. Examples include modified work duties or extended leave.

Retaliation protections under FEHA

• Prohibition on Retaliation: FEHA protects employees from retaliation for requesting accommodations or reporting discrimination.
• Application to Abarca’s Case: Abarca’s work-related injury qualified as a disability under FEHA. Citizens’ failure to continue accommodations and their termination of Abarca violated FEHA’s protections.

For more details on FEHA, visit the California Civil Rights Department.

Trial Verdict. Jury findings, compensatory damages, and punitive damages

The trial was a pivotal moment in Abarca’s fight for justice. Represented by Michael Burgis & Associates (MB&A) and supported by Kramer Holcomb Sheik, Abarca presented evidence of Citizens’ discriminatory actions. Key points included:

• Evidence of Discrimination: Abarca demonstrated that his termination occurred shortly after his work restrictions expired, despite his willingness to continue working and ongoing pain complaints.
• Falsified Documents: The jury found that Citizens’ HR department falsified Workers’ Compensation forms to claim Abarca reported his injury post-termination, indicating malicious intent.

Damages awarded. Compensatory and punitive breakdown

• Damages Awarded: Compensatory Damages: $100,000 to cover lost wages, emotional distress, and other losses.
• Punitive Damages: $550,000 to punish Citizens for their egregious behavior and deter future misconduct.

The jury’s finding of malice, oppression, or fraud underscored the severity of Citizens’ actions, making the punitive damages award a significant aspect of the verdict.

Appeal Analysis. Why the punitive damages award was upheld

Unwilling to accept its defeat, Citizens appealed the trial court’s decision. In 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision on all grounds. Although Citizens raised numerous arguments, much of the appeals court’s opinion addresses the punitive damages award. Citizens raised several objections to this portion of the jury’s verdict:

• The company’s misconduct was not “oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious.”
• Even if the misconduct did rise to this level, it was committed by lower-level employees and not ratified by any officer, director, or “managing agent,” as required by California law.
• The award violates due process.
• The award is contrary to public policy.

Let’s look at each of these arguments in greater detail.

Punitive damages standard. Oppression, fraud, or malice requirement

Under California’s Civil Code, an award of punitive damages can be made only in a case not based on a contract and only if the jury finds that the defendant’s misconduct was “oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious.” While it is unclear which of these adjectives the jury found applicable to Citizens’ conduct, the appellate court found that there was substantial evidence to support a finding that it was any one of the three. Specifically, the court recognized the undisputed evidence that a Citizens H.R. employee falsified a Workers’ Compensation form to make it appear that the company did not have notice of Abarca’s injury until after his termination.

Managing agent and ratification rule. Who must approve the misconduct

Next, the court considered whether the misconduct in question was ratified by an officer, director, or “managing agent” of Citizens. A managing agent is a person with the authority to make significant decisions for the company. The court agreed with the jury’s determination that Citizens’ H.R. manager and corporate counsel qualified as “managing agents” and had indeed ratified the conduct of Abarca’s supervisor and Citizens’ unlawful termination of Abarca.

Due process limits on punitive damages. Fourteenth Amendment guideposts

The court then considered Citizens’ claim that the punitive damage award violates due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Factors to be considered are:

• The reprehensibility of the underlying actions.
• The disparity between the amount of the punitive award and the plaintiff’s actual damages.
• The size of the award compared to those in similar cases.
• The wealth of the defendant.

Reprehensibility factor. Why the conduct justified punishment

The court concurred that Citizens’ misconduct was highly reprehensible, noting that:

• Abarca’s injuries were physical as well as economic.
• The misconduct showed indifference or a reckless disregard for Abarca’s health.
• Abarca was financially vulnerable.
• The harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit.

Ratio factor. Why the punitive to compensatory multiple was acceptable

The court rejected Citizens’ assertion that, under a 2009 California Supreme Court decision, punitive damages cannot exceed the amount of a plaintiff’s compensatory damages; that is, the ratio between compensatory and punitive damages must be no greater than 1 to 1. Nevertheless, the court found that generally a ratio of less than 10 to 1 is sufficient to satisfy this portion of the due process analysis. Here, the award was slightly less than 8 to 1. The court concluded that the punitive damages award was therefore not unconstitutionally disproportionate to the damages award.

Comparable awards factor. How similar cases supported the amount

The appellate court found that the punitive damages award was not disproportionate to awards in other cases with similar circumstances.

Financial condition factor. Why the award would not bankrupt the company

The court observed that an award of $550,000, while not insubstantial, would not cause significant financial hardship to a company with a net worth of nearly $200 million.

Public policy factor. Deterrence value for California employers

The court readily concluded that the punitive damages award benefits the public by punishing wrongdoing and deterring future misconduct, whether by Citizens or other companies that rely on low-wage workers to perform essential functions.

For the full appellate court opinion, see Abarca v. Citizens of Humanity, LLC.

Why this case matters. FEHA enforcement and employer accountability in California

The Abarca vs. Citizens of Humanity case is a landmark in employment law for several reasons:

• Accountability for Employers: It shows that even companies with significant resources can be held accountable for violating disability discrimination laws, reinforcing the power of legal protections for workers.
• Importance of Documentation: The falsification of Workers’ Compensation documents by Citizens’ HR department highlights the need for transparency and accurate record-keeping in handling workplace injuries.
• Deterrence Through Punitive Damages: The $550,000 punitive damages award sends a strong message to employers about the consequences of malicious or fraudulent behavior, particularly toward vulnerable workers.
• Media and Legal Recognition: The case has been featured in JuryVerdictAlert.com (Jury Verdict Alert) and the 2018 Los Angeles Leaders in the Law (Leaders in the Law), underscoring its impact on the legal community.
• Impact on Low-Wage Workers: The case highlights the vulnerability of low-wage workers and the importance of legal protections to ensure fair treatment.

As of now, Citizens still has the opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court of California, but MB&A remains confident that further attempts to challenge the decision will be unsuccessful.

Related FEHA and punitive damages precedents cited in the decision

To place the Abarca case in context, it’s helpful to consider other notable cases that have shaped disability discrimination law in California:

• Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000): This case established that an employer’s failure to engage in the interactive process to determine reasonable accommodations can constitute disability discrimination under FEHA. This precedent supports Abarca’s claim that Citizens failed to adequately accommodate his disability.

Cassista v. Community Foods. Disability protection can apply broadly

• Cassista v. Community Foods, Inc. (1993): This case clarified that an employee does not need to be disabled to be protected under FEHA; even a partial limitation on a major life activity, such as lifting, qualifies as a disability. Abarca’s injury, which limited his lifting capacity, met this criterion.

Roby v. McKesson. Punitive damages ratio guidance in California

• Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009): This California Supreme Court decision addressed punitive damages, stating that a ratio of less than 10:1 between punitive and compensatory damages is generally acceptable. The Abarca case’s 8:1 ratio aligns with this precedent (Roby v. McKesson).

These cases illustrate the breadth of FEHA’s protections and how courts interpret disability discrimination laws, reinforcing the legal foundation of Abarca’s victory.

Practical takeaways for employers and employees

The Abarca case has far-reaching implications for both employers and employees in California:

• For Employers: The case emphasizes the need to comply with FEHA by providing reasonable accommodations and avoiding retaliatory actions. Employers must train supervisors on harassment and discrimination prevention, as required by FEHA, to avoid costly lawsuits.

For employees. Document restrictions, request accommodations, and get legal help early

• For Employees: The case empowers workers, particularly low-wage and vulnerable employees, to seek legal recourse if they face discrimination. It highlights the importance of documenting workplace injuries and seeking legal advice promptly.

For the garment industry. Injury response policies and compliance pressure

• For the Garment Industry: As Citizens of Humanity operates in the garment industry, this case may prompt other companies to review their workplace injury policies and ensure compliance with labor laws.

FAQs about California FEHA disability discrimination and wrongful termination

What is disability discrimination under California law

Disability discrimination occurs when an employer treats a qualified employee or applicant unfavorably because of a disability. Under FEHA, a disability includes any physical or mental impairment that limits a major life activity, such as working or lifting. California’s definition is broader than the federal ADA, covering more conditions and smaller employers.

How can an employee prove wrongful termination due to disability

To prove wrongful termination, an employee must show that their disability was a motivating factor in the termination. This can involve:

• Direct Evidence: Statements from management indicating discriminatory intent.
• Circumstantial Evidence: Timing of the termination, such as shortly after requesting accommodations, as seen in Abarca’s case.

Employees should document all interactions with their employer and seek legal advice.

What are punitive damages, and when are they awarded?

Punitive damages are awarded to punish a defendant for egregious behavior and deter future misconduct. They require a finding of malice, fraud, or oppression, as in the Abarca case, where Citizens falsified documents. In California, punitive damages must be ratified by a managing agent, such as an HR manager or corporate counsel.

How does the Abarca case impact employers in California?

The case serves as a warning to employers about the consequences of violating FEHA. It highlights the need for:

• Proper accommodation processes.
• Transparent handling of workplace injuries.
• Compliance with anti-discrimination training requirements.

Employers risk significant financial penalties, as seen with Citizens’ $650,000 total damages.

What should I do if I face disability discrimination at work?

If you believe you’ve been discriminated against, take these steps:

• Document all relevant incidents, including dates, conversations, and evidence.
• Request accommodations in writing and keep records.
• Contact a qualified employment law attorney, such as Michael Burgis & Associates, for a free consultation.

Speak with a California employment attorney about FEHA disability discrimination claims

If you or someone you know has faced disability discrimination or wrongful termination, don’t let injustice go unchallenged. The experienced attorneys at Michael Burgis & Associates can help you fight for your rights. Contact us today for a free consultation to discuss your case. Visit https://burgislaw.com/ to learn more about our services and how we can assist you in seeking justice.