Employee with Mild Symptoms of COVID-19 Was Not “Disabled” Under California Law

In Michelle Roman v. Hertz Native Version Corp., a United States District Court docket Choose for the Southern District of California granted abstract judgment in favor of Hertz, and in opposition to former worker Michelle Roman, whose employment was terminated after she contracted COVID.  Roman claimed that her job ought to have been protected by the California Truthful Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) whereas she suffered from delicate signs of COVID.  Hertz terminated Roman’s employment after she got here to work sick, which violated firm coverage.  The Court docket held that as a result of Roman’s COVID signs had been delicate and momentary, they didn’t qualify as a “incapacity” underneath FEHA.  Subsequently, FEHA didn’t defend Roman’s job from termination.

Roman labored as a supervisor for Hertz in Nationwide Metropolis, California.  Throughout 2020, Roman acquired coaching from the corporate about COVID protocols, together with that workers exhibiting indicators of COVID shouldn’t be admitted into the office.  Regardless of this coaching, Roman confirmed up at work for 2 days whereas experiencing delicate signs of COVID, reminiscent of “tremendous delicate physique aches,” fatigue, and ache in her hips and again that was “killing her.”  Roman didn’t imagine that her signs had been sufficiently extreme to be brought on by COVID.  However, she took a COVID check to make sure.

The following day whereas at work, Roman discovered that she had examined constructive for COVID.  She knowledgeable her supervisor of the information and was instantly despatched dwelling.  After quarantining for 2 weeks, and receiving a unfavourable COVID check, Roman tried to return to work, however as a substitute was fired by Hertz for beforehand coming to work with signs of COVID, which violated firm coverage.

The idea for Roman’s lawsuit in opposition to Hertz was that as a result of she turned contaminated with COVID, she suffered from a incapacity.  Workers with a incapacity are entitled to safety in opposition to discriminatory and opposed actions underneath FEHA, in addition to an affordable lodging.  To find out the definition of “incapacity,” the Court docket reviewed Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 2, §11065(d)(9)(B), which offers {that a} incapacity doesn’t embrace circumstances which are delicate, don’t restrict a significant life exercise, and have little to no residual results.  The regulation additional offers that the frequent chilly, seasonal or frequent influenza, muscle aches, soreness, and non-migraine complications don’t qualify as a incapacity.  As a result of Roman’s COVID signs had been delicate and didn’t linger, the Court docket discovered that she didn’t have a incapacity underneath FEHA and, due to this fact, she was not protected against termination.

In an essential caveat, the Court docket famous that though many instances of COVID most bear a resemblance to chilly like signs, some instances are way more extreme, with lengthy period, which “would simply qualify as a FEHA incapacity.”  Equally, the California Division of Truthful Employment and Housing pointers present “whether or not sickness associated to COVID rises to the extent of a incapacity (versus a typical seasonal sickness such because the flu) is a truth primarily based dedication.”  The Court docket additional famous that “lengthy COVID” “might nicely fall inside FEHA’s definition of incapacity.”

If an worker contracts COVID, and experiences extreme and/or long-lasting signs, the worker might have a “incapacity” as that time period is outlined by relevant legislation.  As with all different incapacity, the employer would then have an obligation to interact within the interactive course of, present the worker with an affordable lodging, as needed, and be certain that the worker is just not discriminated or retaliated in opposition to due to his or her incapacity.  Nevertheless, if the worker’s COVID signs are delicate and of quick period, the employer has no obligation to interact in any of those actions, and the worker’s job might not be protected.