Zamora v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Background

Margarita Zamora sued her former employer, Costco Wholesale Corporation, alleging disability discrimination and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. She also brought a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Zamora injured her right shoulder in a workplace fall on March 31, 2018, while working as a stocker in Costco’s electronics department. Her stocker duties included stocking products, moving pallets, and helping customers load large items. Those duties required frequent lifting of 11 to 50 pounds and occasional lifting of 51 to 75 pounds.

After the injury, a medical provider released Zamora to work with restrictions against lifting, carrying, pushing, or pulling more than ten pounds. Costco provided temporary transitional assignments, including work in the clothing department and later a temporary position organizing and filing documents. Zamora also took medical leave. In 2020, her treating physician imposed permanent restrictions involving her right shoulder.

Costco held a Job Assessment Meeting to discuss whether Zamora could perform the essential duties of her stocker position with an accommodation. Zamora acknowledged that she could not perform duties requiring her to lift more than ten pounds and proposed performing modified tasks while other stockers handled the lifting. Costco also identified four open positions for her to consider. The court found that each position required physical duties beyond her restrictions or, in the case of the meat-cutter position, involved physically demanding promotional work. Costco later notified Zamora that she had exhausted her leave and terminated her employment on January 29, 2021.

Disability Discrimination and Accommodation Claims

For a disability-discrimination claim under the Act, the plaintiff must show that she had a disability, could perform the essential duties of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation, and experienced an adverse employment action because of the disability. For a failure-to-accommodate claim, the plaintiff must show a disability, qualification to perform the essential duties, and the employer’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The court held that Zamora could not show that she was a qualified individual for her stocker position. Lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling were essential functions of that job, and Zamora could not perform them within her medical restrictions. Costco was not required to create a new position consisting only of tasks Zamora could perform. It also was not required to turn a temporary light-duty assignment into a permanent position.

The court further held that Costco did not have to excuse Zamora from performing essential stocker duties. The court rejected Zamora’s suggestion that she could handle setup and clothing tasks while other stockers performed the lifting because that arrangement would eliminate essential functions of the job.

The court also rejected Zamora’s claims that Costco failed to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process or failed to accommodate her by enforcing its leave policy. The court found that Costco used the Job Assessment Meeting to discuss the stocker duties, consider possible accommodations, and review vacant positions. It also found that Costco had allowed Zamora to take medical leave beyond its official one-year policy. The court stated that the Act may require finite leave as a reasonable accommodation, but does not require indefinite leave while an employee awaits a possible future vacancy.

Wrongful-Termination Claim

The court found that Zamora’s wrongful-termination claim overlapped entirely with her disability-discrimination and accommodation claims. Because it granted summary judgment for Costco on those claims, it also granted summary judgment for Costco on the wrongful-termination claim.

Request for More Discovery

Zamora asked the court to postpone ruling on Costco’s summary-judgment motion and reopen discovery so she could depose Costco’s corporate witnesses. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), a court may delay or deny summary judgment, allow additional discovery, or issue another appropriate order when a nonmoving party identifies specific facts needed to oppose the motion.

The court denied Zamora’s request. It found that she did not specifically identify relevant information sought from the depositions. The court also found that she had not acted diligently because fact discovery had been open from December 5, 2023, through September 20, 2024, but she had not noticed a deposition during that period or pursued the discovery dispute after Costco objected to her proposed topics.

Disposition

The court granted Costco’s motion for summary judgment. It denied Zamora’s request to postpone adjudication under Rule 56(d) and directed the clerk to enter judgment for Costco.