Work Bias Suit Limits Lengthened

A California Supreme Court decision Thursday has, in effect, extended the statute of limitations on workplace disability lawsuits, an opinion that could have a far-reaching effect on how employers and disabled workers handle disability issues.

Some lawyers said the opinion could be applied to a variety of sex and race discrimination cases in employment and housing. Paul W. Cane Jr., a lawyer representing the firm involved in the case, said the ruling does not appear to extend to discrimination allegations arising from one-time events, such as a denied promotion.

Under state law, the statute of limitations on discrimination claims is one year. The ruling overturned an appellate court decision that set that one-year clock ticking at the point discrimination is first suspected.

In a case over whether a company made reasonable efforts to accommodate a wheelchair-using engineer, the Supreme Court said the clock should start when resolution efforts end.

Disabilities advocates said the decision will encourage employees to seek changes through mediation before rushing to court. But management experts said it could send the opposite message to employers, encouraging them to deny requests for accommodation in order to limit their possible liability.

The opinion creates an “odd incentive” for employers, Cane said. “The employer who says, ‘No and never darken our door again,’ is oddly better off than the employer who has an open ear.”

If, for instance, an employer takes time to consider and make a change, such as adding a wheelchair ramp, he risks extending beyond one year the period for which the company may later be found liable for discrimination, management lawyers said.

“Unfortunately, like other well-meaning doctrines, it probably encourages employers to shut the door on discussing accommodations before they may otherwise be inclined to,” said David Raizman, a Santa Monica management lawyer.

“You’ve added the amount of time over which a claim will be litigated, and you’ve increased the potential damages because of how long the allegedly discriminatory practices were going on,” Raizman said.

But Christopher H. Whelan, a lawyer representing the employee in the case, said the decision would encourage workers to seek accommodations from employers before going to court.

“The Supreme Court decision recognizes reality, and it doesn’t penalize people who are cooperative and conciliatory and try to work with management instead of running out and filing a lawsuit,” Whelan said.

“Now the employees won’t have to run out and file a lawsuit every year,” he said. “They had a Hobson’s choice of filing a lawsuit and being a pariah in the workplace or just accepting this discriminatory conduct and never getting compensated for it.”

Eve Hill, executive director of the Western Law Center for Disability Rights, said she believes many disabled workers resigned themselves to inadequate working conditions in the face of such a choice.

“Employees with disabilities really are attached to their jobs, and they will put up with inhumane circumstances to keep their jobs,” she said.

The case involved Lachi Delisa Richards, a civil engineer who received favorable reviews from her employer, the Redding office of CH2M Hill Inc., a Denver-based national engineering firm. In 1984, three years after she began working for the firm, Richards began having tremors and trouble walking. She began to use a wheelchair and in 1988 was found to have multiple sclerosis, a disease of the central nervous system with symptoms that can come and go.

Her requests included being allowed to work part time and moving to the Sacramento office because the Redding office was not wheelchair-accessible. When her condition worsened, she took a 10-month leave, returning in early 1990. She worked 20 to 25 hours a week until she resigned in 1993, after informing a supervisor she had been frustrated by, among other things, poor hallway and ramp access for her wheelchair.

During the trial, she testified she believed the situation was affecting her health. “It was just unbearable for me,” she testified. “I could not work there any longer.”

A jury awarded Richards $1.4 million after finding the engineering firm had created a hostile work environment and failed to meet her needs.

An appellate court 18 months ago overturned that verdict, applying a federal legal doctrine that the statute-of-limitations clock should start running the day a person believes the discriminatory behavior began.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to trial court.

Even when the trial court applies the new standard to the evidence in the Richards case, lawyers for CH2M Hill said they expect the engineering company to prevail and the jury award to be overturned.

The company addressed a series of requests by Richards, either by making changes or denying them, well over a year before she filed her discrimination complaint, said Ted Olson, a Denver lawyer representing the company.