Legal Standard for Pregnancy Discrimination Claims in California clarified

A California appellate court in Lopez v. La Casa De Las Madres (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 364 recently concluded that workers bringing pregnancy discrimination claims must prove: (1) the plaintiff had a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition; (2) the plaintiff requested accommodation of this condition, with the advice of her health care provider; (3) the plaintiff's employer refused to provide a reasonable accommodation; and (4) with the reasonable accommodation, the plaintiff could have performed the essential functions of the job.

This case is significant because it is the first to articulate what a plaintiff must establish to assert protections for pregnancy related disabilities.  Workers asserting such claims must be prepared to establish that they had a pregnancy-related condition and that they requested and were denied a reasonable accommodation by their employer that would have allowed them to perform their essential job functions.  

A reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment to the workplace that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job held or desired, and may include job restructuring or permitting an alteration of when or how an essential function is performed.  An employee is entitled to accommodation of a condition relating to pregnancy in specified situations. 

In Lopez, after giving birth, the plaintiff employee experienced health complications.  She provided her employer with periodic certifications relating to her condition and unsuccessfully attempted to convince her employer to allow her to return to work, resulting in her termination.  The plaintiff claimed she could perform the essential job functions of her role as a shelter manager with a reasonable accommodation.  Her health care provider had advised against activities that produced stress and that required making important decisions, and the employee had requested a flexible schedule accommodation whereby she could leave work to avoid stress or anxiety.  The employer established that the essential functions of the shelter-manager job included making critical decisions in an inherently stressful environment, making on-the-spot decisions in emergency situations that could arise at any time, and being on call to address a crisis as it arises.

At issue in Lopez was the application of Government Code section 12945, which provides employees with conditions relating to pregnancy with pregnancy-disability leave for up to four months and accommodation of a condition related to pregnancy in specified situations. 

The plaintiff argued that she was not required to prove (as the trial court held) that she had a condition related to pregnancy to prevail on a section 12945 claim.  The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument and explained that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that they had a condition related to pregnancy and that they were able to perform the essential functions of their job with a reasonable accommodation.    

The Court concluded the employee in Lopez’s requested accommodation would not work because it did not accommodate her in performing her essential functions, but rather would have excused her from needing to perform them at all.  Because the burden is on the employee to prove that they would be able to perform the essential functions of their job with a reasonable accommodation and she failed to meet that burden, the Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the employer.

For more information, please contact your labor law counsel.