Madrigal v. Performance Food Group, Inc.

Background

Jorge Madrigal alleged that he began working for Performance Transportation, LLC (PTL) as a Class A Driver in December 2016 and performed well for nearly four years. He has diabetes. In February 2020, he developed pneumonia, was hospitalized, and took medical leave. His physician later extended the leave because diabetes placed him at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19.

Madrigal alleged that, after PTL requested additional medical documentation, he provided information stating that he could return to work if he minimized contact with other people for six to twelve months. He requested a temporary accommodation. At a September 8, 2020 meeting, he proposed working in PTL’s warehouse. He also alleged that PTL could have used contactless delivery procedures or assigned him to a long-haul route with little or no customer interaction. PTL denied his request without offering other options, and terminated him ten days later. The termination letter stated that no reasonable accommodation was available for his permanent work restrictions.

Madrigal’s amended complaint asserted claims for disability discrimination, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in a good-faith interactive process, and retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). He also asserted a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. PTL moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s analysis

The court accepted the amended complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and viewed them in the light most favorable to Madrigal. It concluded that Madrigal adequately alleged that diabetes was a qualifying disability under FEHA. The court explained that diabetes is a physiological disease and that Madrigal alleged his diabetes increased his risk of serious illness during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found sufficient allegations that Madrigal could perform the essential duties of his driver position with or without a reasonable accommodation. His allegations that PTL could have used limited-contact or contactless delivery procedures were enough at the pleading stage to address PTL’s argument that he could not both deliver food and avoid customer contact.

For the disability-discrimination claim, the court found that the timing of Madrigal’s termination—ten days after his accommodation request—and PTL’s stated reason for termination plausibly supported an inference that his disability and accommodation request were a substantial motivating factor in the decision.

The court separately found that Madrigal adequately stated a failure-to-accommodate claim. He alleged that he requested a temporary accommodation, PTL denied it, and PTL did not offer other options. The court also found that he stated an interactive-process claim because he alleged that PTL ended the meeting after denying his request without exploring other possible accommodations. The court rejected PTL’s argument that providing medical leave and scheduling a meeting automatically established good-faith participation.

For retaliation, the court found that Madrigal adequately alleged protected activity—requesting a reasonable accommodation—an adverse employment action—his termination—and a causal connection based on the short time between the request and termination. Finally, because the amended complaint adequately alleged disability discrimination and retaliation under FEHA, the court found that Madrigal also stated a related wrongful-termination claim based on California public policy.

Disposition

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied PTL’s motion to dismiss. The order allowed Madrigal’s FEHA and wrongful-termination claims to continue, but it did not resolve the ultimate merits of those claims.