Fazaei v. Macy's Inc.

Background

Tarbiyat Fazaei, who had worked for Macy’s, sued the company over disability-related employment decisions. She asserted four claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): disability discrimination, disability retaliation, failure to engage in the required good-faith interactive process, and failure to accommodate. She also asserted claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. After her lawyer withdrew, Fazaei proceeded without a lawyer.

Fazaei suffered a concussion at work in November 2016 and took leaves of absence. Her doctors later gave Macy’s various work restrictions. Macy’s offered her several light-duty positions and other opportunities to return to work. Fazaei declined or stopped some positions, took additional leave, and at times did not provide requested medical documentation. In late 2019 and early 2020, a Macy’s employee attempted to discuss possible accommodations with Fazaei, but Fazaei declined phone communications and requested that communications occur by email. Macy’s terminated her employment on January 15, 2020, citing her failure to return to work.

Summary judgment standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must consider reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion, but that party must provide evidence supporting essential elements of the claims.

Court’s analysis

Disability discrimination. Under FEHA, Fazaei needed evidence supporting a basic initial showing of discrimination, including evidence of circumstances suggesting a discriminatory motive. The court held that she provided no evidence of discriminatory motive and offered only allegations that Macy’s stated reasons were a pretext, meaning a false reason masking discrimination. The court granted summary judgment to Macy’s on this claim.

Disability retaliation. Even assuming Fazaei had made the initial showing required for retaliation, the court found that Macy’s presented evidence that it terminated her after a lengthy leave and her failure to participate in the interactive process. The court held that the timing of the termination, by itself, did not create a triable issue—a factual dispute requiring trial—about whether Macy’s explanation was pretextual. The court granted summary judgment to Macy’s on this claim.

Interactive process. FEHA requires an employer and employee to communicate in good faith to identify effective reasonable accommodations. The court found that Macy’s presented evidence that Fazaei delayed or obstructed that process by refusing to communicate by phone with the employee assigned to discuss accommodations. Because Fazaei offered no evidence contesting Macy’s account, the court granted summary judgment to Macy’s on this claim.

Failure to accommodate. The court found that Macy’s presented evidence that it offered Fazaei several accommodations over approximately two years. The court also found that the offered positions were consistent with her documented restrictions, or that Macy’s allowed leave when that was her preference. Fazaei identified no medical restriction requiring a chair without wheels and acknowledged that she lacked a bending restriction when she stopped another offered position. The court further noted that Macy’s did not provide an accommodation on two occasions because Fazaei did not provide requested documentation about her restrictions. The court granted summary judgment to Macy’s on this claim.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress. This claim was based on the same conduct as the FEHA claims. The court held that Macy’s conduct concerning Fazaei’s disability and employment was legally permissible and was not sufficiently extreme or outrageous to support this claim. The court granted summary judgment to Macy’s.

Wrongful termination and retaliation violating public policy. Fazaei based this common-law claim on public policies reflected in FEHA. Because the court found that she had not provided evidence of conduct prohibited by FEHA, it held that she could not recover on this related claim. The court granted summary judgment to Macy’s.

Result

The court granted Macy’s motion for summary judgment on all six claims. It did not decide Macy’s argument that claims based on events before August 5, 2018 were time-barred because summary judgment was appropriate even when considering those events. The court also did not address punitive damages because summary judgment was granted on every claim. Judge Richard Seeborg signed the order.