A California appellate court recently held that an employee diagnosed with an adjustment disorder triggered by stress caused by her supervisor’s standard oversight of her job performance is not disabled under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Medical Foundation, 2015 Cal.App.LEXIS 455 (May 26, 2015). In so doing, the court bucked the current trend of expanding protection of employees unable to work due to medical conditions.

Employed as a clinical assistant, Michaelin Higgins-Williams reported to her personal (non-work) treating physician that she was stressed because of interactions at work with human resources and her manager. In leave paperwork submitted to her employer, her physician reported her condition as “stress when dealing with her Human Resources and her manager.” After one of her leave requests was denied and she was instead terminated, she sued for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate her disability in violation of the FEHA.

The court affirmed summary judgment for her employer on the ground she was not disabled as a matter of law. The court noted a previous case had held a mental condition that prevented an employee from working under a particular supervisor or performing one particular job did not constitute a disability under FEHA: Hobson v. Raychem Corp., 73 Cal.App.4th 614 (1999). Hobson applied the now-discarded standard that a medical condition must substantially limit a major life activity to qualify as a disability; the current standard under the FEHA is that a medical condition need only limit a major life activity, whether or not that limitation is substantial. However, the court held Hobson remains good law on the point that inability to work under a specific supervisor because of anxiety and stress related to the supervisor’s standard job performance oversight does not constitute a mental disability under FEHA. Moreover, the court held the supervisor engaged in standard oversight as a matter of law, even though the supervisor allegedly singled Higgins-Williams out for negative treatment and on one occasion grabbed her arm and yelled at her.

Ordinarily a physical or mental condition that limits an employee’s ability to work will be deemed a disability requiring reasonable accommodation, and accordingly employers will generally want to accommodate employees with such conditions where possible. However, this case places a welcome common-sense boundary around employee disability claims: an employee cannot claim she is disabled because her supervisor stresses her out.

Photo of Dylan B. Carp Dylan B. Carp

Dylan B. Carp is a principal in the San Francisco, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He is a certified specialist in Appellate Law by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization. Dylan has briefed and argued over 50 appeals before…

Dylan B. Carp is a principal in the San Francisco, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He is a certified specialist in Appellate Law by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization. Dylan has briefed and argued over 50 appeals before numerous federal and state appellate courts. In addition to appeals and writs, Dylan focuses his practice on unfair competition and trade secrets law, having second chaired a three-month unfair competition jury trial.

Dylan also handles all aspects of litigation in cases involving discrimination, harassment, disability, and wage and hour issues, including taking and defending depositions, briefing and arguing dispositive motions, and participating in mediations and settlement conferences. In addition to Dylan’s litigation practice, he counsels employers on unfair competition, discrimination, harassment, and wage and hour issues.