California health care employers who have objectively enforced mandatory vaccination policies can take great comfort in the recent California Court of Appeals ruling. In Hodges v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the court ruled that Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (CSMC), in California, dismissed an employee for failing to comply with its compulsory flu vaccination policy. It found that it did not violate the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The employee failed to establish actual or perceived disability under FEHA. that her dismissal was on pretext. or the causal relationship between her request for accommodations and her dismissal necessary to maintain FEHA’s retaliation claim.
What you need to know
- The court found that the compulsory vaccination policy, implemented in accordance with federal guidance and with patient safety in mind, was ostensibly indiscriminate, objective, and objectively applied.
- Dismissal for reasons that are not ostensibly discriminatory and that the employer honestly believes to be justified are sufficient to justify adverse employment action under FEHA.
understand the court’s ruling here.
background
Deanna Hodges has been hired by CSMC as a manager with no patient care responsibilities. CSMC introduced a mandatory vaccination policy, requiring all employees, regardless of their role, to receive the flu vaccine. The policy made an exception for employees who have established “valid medical or religious waivers.” Employees who refused vaccination based on medical contraindications were required to submit a waiver application completed by a physician. The waiver application lists two of her recognized contraindications. (1) Influenza A history of life-threatening allergic reactions to her vaccine or any of its components. (2) History of Guillain-Barré syndrome within 6 weeks after influenza vaccination. The form also included a section for the physician to state an “other” reason, and advised the physician to provide supporting documentation.
Hodges provided a memo from his doctor recommending that he be exempted from vaccination because of his history of cancer, neuropathy and common allergies, but did not attach any supporting documentation. The CSMC’s Waiver Review Board denied her request, and after Ms. Hodges continued to refuse flu vaccinations, the CSMC terminated her employment.
Hodges sued CSMC in California state court, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under FEHA. The court of first instance granted summary judgment to CSMC, and Hodges appealed.
Court of Appeal decision
The second district court of appeals affirmed the court of first instance’s grant of summary judgment in favor of CSMC. The court applied a burden-passing framework. McDonnell Douglas vs. Green, found no direct evidence that the CSMC acted with retaliatory motives. Rather, the evidence indicates that the CSMC fired Mr. Hodges for failure to follow its policies, which is not prohibited by FEHA.
Applying that framework, the Court of Appeal held:
- Ms. Hodges did not prove that she had a “disability” under FEHA. FEHA requires that an employee claiming a disability be deemed to be in a state that “limits essential life activities” or to the employer. Ms. Hodges failed to demonstrate that she had a disability or that the CSMC recognized her as having a disability. In fact, Hodges has previously admitted that her various illnesses do not limit her ability to work.
- even if Hodges tentatively In this discrimination lawsuit, summary judgment was appropriate because the CSMC presented justifiable, nondiscriminatory grounds for dismissing her from employment. If you terminate your employment on non-discriminatory grounds and the employer believes in good faith, it is sufficient to show justification for your actions against employment. Even if the reasons are stupid, trivial, and unfounded, the ultimate question is whether the employer sincerely believed the reasons presented for their actions.
- The legitimate and indiscriminate reason for the CSMC’s dismissal of Mr. Hodges (failure to receive the flu vaccine in accordance with the compulsory vaccination policy) was not an excuse (or pretense). Because CSMC relied on federal guidance to conclude that no objective evidence of disability existed and no vaccinations were given. The policy was objective in nature and objectively applied to Hodges.
- CSMC was not obligated under FEHA to engage in an interactive process for determining reasonable accommodation for Hodges. This was due to the lack of recognition of the obstacles and obstacles to which we should actually adapt.
- Ms. Hodges was unable to prove a causal link between her request for accommodation and her dismissal because her employment was terminated for failing to receive the policy-mandated flu vaccine.
Take-out
While Hodges’ decision provides comfort to health care employers seeking to implement mandatory vaccination policies, it also highlights important lessons. Even where objectively appropriate vaccination policies exist, health care employers must take care to apply those policies in a fair, objective and equitable manner.
[View source.]
