Zarco v. VWR International, LLC

Background

Emmanuel Zarco worked for VWR International, LLC as a chemical tracking coordinator beginning in March 2016. In 2018, he worked at facilities of BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc., a VWR customer. His duties included handling and delivering hazardous chemicals, managing physical inventory, operating basic warehouse equipment, and conducting safety and equipment inspections.

Zarco had congestive heart failure and told his supervisor that he needed surgery to have a device implanted to assist his heart and would ultimately need a heart transplant. His cardiologist reported in March 2018 that Zarco could not perform work of any kind. VWR granted him 12 weeks of unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act and later approved additional leave through October 1, 2018.

Medical reports in June and October 2018 stated that Zarco could not work in any capacity, that no workplace adjustment would allow him to return consistently to his job duties, and that his restrictions would continue unless he received and recovered from a heart-kidney or heart transplant. The October medical information indicated that Zarco’s possible return would occur six months to one year after a heart transplant, which had not yet been scheduled. VWR concluded that it could no longer hold his position while using temporary workers and terminated his employment effective November 5, 2018. VWR told Zarco that he could reapply when he was able to work.

Zarco later received a heart transplant in January 2019. VWR offered him an inventory coordinator position in October 2020, but he declined it. The opinion states that he began working as a caregiver for an elderly individual in January 2021.

Claims and Summary-Judgment Standard

Zarco asserted claims for disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation under the California Family Rights Act, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The defendants moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

FEHA Disability-Discrimination Claim

The court held that the defendants met their initial burden by showing that Zarco could not establish that he was able to perform his job, or any job, when he was terminated. The court relied on the medical evidence stating that Zarco could not work, that no accommodation would allow him to return, and that his return depended on recovery from a transplant.

Zarco argued that his statement to his supervisor that he felt able to return to work created a factual dispute. The court rejected that argument because the statement was contradicted by the later medical reports, and Zarco acknowledged that his doctor had not cleared him to perform any part of his former job. The court also rejected his argument that statements about the cost of temporary workers showed discriminatory intent. It found that VWR’s stated reasons were consistent with the medical evidence and that Zarco had not produced evidence that the reasons were a pretext, meaning a false explanation covering an unlawful motive. The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the disability-discrimination claim.

FEHA Retaliation Claim

Zarco argued that VWR terminated him after he requested an accommodation and that the timing supported a retaliation claim. The court assumed, without deciding, that he had made the initial showing required for the claim. It nevertheless held that VWR had offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons: Zarco could not perform his duties, and it was not feasible to cover his position indefinitely with temporary workers because of financial and customer-service concerns.

The court found that Zarco had not offered substantial evidence that those reasons were untrue or pretextual. It granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the FEHA retaliation claim.

Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation

Because the court found no triable issue of fact—that is, no factual dispute requiring a trial—on the underlying discrimination or retaliation claims, it granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Zarco’s claim that VWR failed to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and retaliation.

Failure to Accommodate and Interactive-Process Claims

The court held that the defendants were entitled to rely on the medical evidence indicating that Zarco was unable to work. It reasoned that an employer is not required to engage in an accommodation process that would be futile when the medical evidence says the employee cannot perform any work. The court also held that Zarco’s requested additional leave was indefinite because his possible return was contingent on recovery from a surgery that had not been scheduled. Under the California authorities discussed by the court, an employer is not required to provide indefinite leave as a reasonable accommodation.

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process.

California Family Rights Act Retaliation Claim

Zarco argued that his protected leave beginning in March 2018 was a substantial motivating reason for his termination. The court held that he had not shown a triable issue about whether VWR’s stated legitimate reason for terminating him was pretextual. It therefore granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the California Family Rights Act retaliation claim.

The court also rejected Zarco’s argument that a separate California Family Rights Act interference claim should proceed because the defendants had not addressed it. The court found that Zarco had pleaded a discrimination and retaliation claim, not an interference claim, and had not identified an interference claim in his case-management statement.

Wrongful Termination and Punitive Damages

The court stated that Zarco’s wrongful-termination claim was derivative of his FEHA and California Family Rights Act claims and failed for the same reasons. The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on that claim. Because no claim survived, the court found the issue of punitive damages moot.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of defendants and close the file. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.