Ryan Golden
4 min read
In This Article:
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter.
-
A former Costco hourly sales employee may proceed with his lawsuit alleging that the retailer violated California's Fair Employment and Housing Act when it failed to accommodate his need to care for his wife, who had cancer, a federal judge held June 5.
-
The plaintiff in Head v. Costco Wholesale Corp. took “continuous leave” between March 2021 and June 2022 to care for his wife as well as his own medical condition. He exhausted all leave available under the Family and Medical Leave Act, California’s Family Rights Act and Costco’s own leave policies. He then asked that his leave be further extended to continue care for his wife, but Costco denied the request and ordered him to return to work in July 2022.
-
The plaintiff ultimately resigned rather than return on the specified date. He sought reinstatement after his wife died but was denied. He filed several claims against Costco but, in a split verdict, the court held that only some of his claims could survive summary judgment, including failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, and wrongful termination.
The case highlights the complexities involved when state and federal leave laws intersect with an employer’s own leave policies.
Per the court, Costco’s employee agreement with the plaintiff specified that the maximum continuous total amount of leave an employee may take — inclusive of both federal- and state-mandated leave, as well as Costco’s own personal medical leave policy — is 12 months, except as required by law.
The plaintiff’s first block of continuous leave began in March 2021 and ended June 2021, when he took FMLA and CFRA leave to care for his wife and exhausted his leave allotment under both laws in the process. He then took approved personal medical leave to care for his own health condition from June 2021 to February 2022.
Costco reached out to the plaintiff in February to inform him that his leave of absence was set to expire after one year. Per the court, the plaintiff responded by requesting an extension of his return date to February 2023 so that he could take care of his wife. Costco informed the plaintiff that he was not eligible for additional leave because he had not worked the requisite number of hours in the previous year to qualify for additional leave under either the FMLA or CFRA.
The plaintiff ultimately sued, alleging in part that Costco violated FEHA by discriminating against him based on his association with a person who had a disability, his wife.
