(2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 143
Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three · Decided April 13, 2011
01. Facts
Linda Wills worked for the Superior Court of California, County of Orange (the OC Court), until it terminated her for violating its written policy against verbal threats, threatening conduct, and violence in the workplace (195 Cal.App.4th at p. 147). Wills sued the OC Court under the FEHA, alleging it terminated her for conduct related to her mental disability, and argued the FEHA bars an employer from disciplining an employee for workplace misconduct caused by a disability just as it bars discrimination based on the disability itself (id. at p. 147). The trial court granted the OC Court summary judgment (id. at p. 147).
02. Procedural posture
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the FEHA does not immunize disability-caused threats from discipline (195 Cal.App.4th at p. 147).
03. Issue
Whether the FEHA prohibits an employer from disciplining or terminating an employee for threats or other misconduct in the workplace when that misconduct is caused by the employee’s mental disability.
Holding
The FEHA protects an employee’s disability status, not threatening or violent conduct; an employer may discipline or terminate an employee for making workplace threats even if the threats are caused by a disability, and doing so is not unlawful disability discrimination (195 Cal.App.4th at p. 147).
05. Reasoning
The court distinguished between an employee’s protected disability status and the employee’s conduct. The FEHA forbids adverse action because of a disability, but it does not require an employer to tolerate threats of violence that the employer reasonably believes occurred, even when the conduct is a manifestation of a disability. Enforcing a neutral anti-violence policy against such conduct addresses the conduct, not the status, and therefore does not violate the FEHA.
Practice Pointer
Wills marks a real limit on disability-discrimination claims: misconduct — especially threats or violence — is not shielded merely because it stems from a disability. For plaintiff’s counsel, do not rest a claim on the theory that disability-caused misconduct cannot be disciplined; instead, where possible, focus on accommodation before the misconduct, pretext (whether the “threat” rationale is genuine and evenhandedly applied), or whether the employer truly and reasonably believed a threat occurred.
06. Open questions
Wills drew the status/conduct line for threats and violence but left harder cases — where disability-caused conduct is disruptive but not threatening, or where accommodation might have prevented the conduct — for future development, including how the duty to accommodate interacts with discipline for disability-related behavior.
Cite this entry
Wills v. Superior Court (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 143.
“Wills worked for the OC Court until it terminated her employment for violating its written policy against verbal threats, threatening conduct, and violence in the workplace.” — 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 147
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].