Court Finds Triable Issues Exist as to Employee’s Disability and Age Discrimination Claims
The Court of Appeal in Sandell v. Taylor-Lustig concluded that a plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on his disability and age discrimination claims under California law.
Under the facts of Sandell, the plaintiff was hired as the Vice-President of Sales but suffered a stroke approximately six months later. Although the plaintiff returned to work, he walked with a cane and his speech was noticeably slower. Approximately four years later, and a few days after the plaintiff’s 60th birthday, the employer terminated the plaintiff citing performance-related issues, including a decrease in company sales.
After his termination, the plaintiff sued his employer for disability and age discrimination. On the issue of whether the plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of California law, the court stated, "evidence that an individual requires a cane in order to walk is clearly sufficient to establish that a person is physically disabled under California law." In addition, the plaintiff presented evidence that he had difficulty speaking, which also constituted a disability because it limited a major life activity.
The court also found there was a conflict in the evidence concerning the grounds for the plaintiff’s termination. Although the employer cited sales data showing that sales decreased for the first time in 20 years during the plaintiff’s first year of employment, the plaintiff presented evidence that the company's market share had increased in a number of key markets. Similarly, although the plaintiff received a "must improve" rating on a performance review, there was conflicting evidence as to why that was the case and the court observed it could have been due to conditions beyond the plaintiff’s control.
The court also stated that there was sufficient evidence supporting the plaintiff's age discrimination claim. The employer argued there was a "strong inference" that it did not discriminate because the same employee hired and terminated the plaintiff within five years. The court nonetheless found that the passage of time and the plaintiff’s stroke were intervening events that could have caused the plaintiff’s age to factor into the termination decision.