$4.5 million for an employer's failure to grant additional leave under state law was recently granted by a Californian court – in the case of Hill v. Asian American Drug Abuse Program Inc.
Although several previous court rulings have come down on the side of the employers who denied extended leave under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it would now seem that this issue has not been established.
Della Hill worked as a counselor for a nonprofit drug abuse program in Los Angeles County - and in 2014, she was honored by that county for her work. However, in 2015 she injured her arm and subsequently took time off to recover from the injury and also from a diagnosis of severe depression. She was scheduled to return to work on March 23, 2015 but she then asked for an extension of her leave, under state law, until April 11, 2015 - an additional 18 days.
Della Hill’s employers ignored her request and she did not return to work. Instead, she was fired from her job on March 31, 2015 without further discussion about any alternatives or possible re-employment.
As a result, Della Hill filed a suit under Californian law - which is analyzed similarly to federal anti-discrimination law - and last month the jury found in her favor, awarding her $550,000 in past and future wage loss, $1.35 million in compensatory damages, and $2.6 million in punitive damages, the latter due to the fact that the employer failed to engage her in any interactive discussion. The jury decided that this was evidence of "malice, oppression or fraud".
Ms Hill was represented by the Los Angeles-based employment discrimination firm Shegerian & Associates. Carney Shegerian, trial lawyer and founder of the firm, said:
"Ms. Hill was a hard-working employee who was dedicated to her work with AADAP prior to her termination. After breaking her arm, Ms. Hill took a protected leave of absence, which was when she was diagnosed with major depression.”
He went on to say:
“Employers have a legal obligation to make reasonable accommodations for disabled employees and to engage in a dialogue to gauge their needs. But instead of accommodating Ms. Hill after learning of her diagnosis, AADAP chose to wrongfully terminate her employment because of her disability."
Carney Shegerian added:
“Ms. Hill was not only a victim of discrimination in the workplace, but her firing was covered up under the excuse that it was a financial hardship to keep her out on a leave of absence despite such leave being unpaid. The termination, without warning or legal justification, forever changed Ms. Hill's life. This sizable verdict should serve as a warning to other employers that there are serious consequences for not only violating an employee's rights in the workplace but for covering up such violations based on unfounded reasons.”
