Nguyen v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Background

Brian Nguyen worked for Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. for approximately 27 years. He claimed that Walmart unlawfully terminated his employment while he was on protected disability leave. Walmart claimed that Nguyen voluntarily resigned after a prolonged, unapproved absence, and alternatively argued that it could have terminated him for missing scheduled shifts and failing to follow its leave policy.

In October 2021, Nguyen suffered a head and neck injury. On October 27, 2021, he gave personnel manager Meghan Keiser a doctor’s note stating that he had a temporary total disability and needed time away from work. The parties disputed what Keiser told Nguyen to do next. Walmart said Keiser instructed him to send his disability form to Sedgwick, Walmart’s third-party claims administrator. Nguyen said Keiser told him she would process the form and directed him to send materials to an email address and fax number associated with Walmart’s San Jose store.

Walmart’s attendance records marked Nguyen as on leave for many dates, although other dates were marked as unauthorized, as indicating that he was no longer employed, or as authorized leave. His employment ended on February 2, 2022. Walmart relied on an internal termination report stating that his separation was voluntary and based on better opportunities, but Walmart acknowledged the records might be mistaken and could not identify who received Nguyen’s resignation. Nguyen said he did not resign and learned of his termination after receiving a letter stating that his insurance coverage had ended.

Nguyen asserted eight causes of action: disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; retaliation under the California Family Rights Act; interference under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and waiting-time penalties.

Summary-judgment standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion.

Claims granted in Walmart’s favor

Nguyen did not respond to Walmart’s arguments concerning his Family and Medical Leave Act interference claim and waiting-time-penalty claim. The court treated those claims as abandoned and granted Walmart’s motion on both claims.

FEHA claims

The court denied summary judgment on Nguyen’s California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims. The court found factual disputes about whether Walmart knew Nguyen had a disability. Walmart conceded that Nguyen gave Keiser a form stating that he was disabled and needed time away from work. Nguyen’s attendance records also showed that he was listed as on leave for most of the period before his separation. These records, along with Nguyen’s testimony that he followed Keiser’s instructions, created a factual dispute about Walmart’s notice of his disability.

The court also found a factual dispute about whether Nguyen resigned or was terminated. Walmart relied on its internal records, but acknowledged that they might be wrong. Nguyen testified that he did not resign. The court held that these factual and credibility questions must be decided by a jury rather than on summary judgment.

The court likewise found factual disputes regarding retaliation. Because the court found factual disputes about disability discrimination, it also found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Walmart knew about Nguyen’s disability and terminated him in retaliation for taking leave.

Walmart did not provide evidence showing that it terminated Nguyen because he failed to follow the leave policy. Instead, it argued that it could have terminated him for that reason. The court held that this hypothetical explanation did not establish Walmart’s entitlement to summary judgment.

The court also denied summary judgment on Nguyen’s failure-to-accommodate and failure-to-engage-in-the-interactive-process claims. A reasonable jury could find that Walmart did not follow its written process for handling accommodation requests, that Walmart did not try to work with Nguyen to find an accommodation, and that Walmart ignored communications sent through the channels Keiser allegedly provided.

Other claims

Walmart argued that Nguyen’s retaliation claim under the California Family Rights Act and his wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim necessarily failed because his FEHA claims failed. Because the court declined to grant summary judgment on the FEHA claims, it denied Walmart’s motion on those two claims as well.

Punitive damages

The court granted Walmart’s motion to strike Nguyen’s request for punitive damages. For punitive damages based on an employee’s conduct, California law requires proof involving an officer, director, or managing agent of a corporate employer, including advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, or ratification of wrongful conduct. Walmart denied that any such person engaged in malice, fraud, or oppression and denied that Meghan Keiser was an officer or director or had the required discretionary authority. Nguyen did not respond with evidence supporting punitive damages. The court therefore held that punitive damages were barred in this case.

Disposition

The court granted, in part, and denied, in part, Walmart’s motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, partial summary judgment. It granted the motion as to Nguyen’s Family and Medical Leave Act interference and waiting-time-penalty claims, granted Walmart’s motion to strike the request for punitive damages, and denied the motion as to the remaining claims: FEHA disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, FEHA retaliation, California Family Rights Act retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.