Court partly sides with worker in sick spouse bias case

A federal judge has partially denied Costco Wholesale Corporation’s bid to dismiss claims brought by a former employee who says the retailer failed to accommodate his need to care for his terminally ill wife.

The plaintiff, who worked for Costco for nearly 30 years, claims the company forced him to resign in 2022 after denying an extension of leave needed to care for his wife. He sought to be rehired in 2023 following her death, but Costco declined.

The plaintiff claims the company discriminated against him based on his association with a disabled person – his wife – and failed to provide the accommodations required under California law.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California allowed several of the plaintiff’s claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act to proceed.

The judge found that there were genuine disputes of fact about whether Costco failed to accommodate the plaintiff’s caregiving responsibilities and whether the company engaged in the required interactive process.

Costco maintained that the plaintiff had exhausted his available leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the California Family Rights Act, and its own policies. The company had informed him that he was expected to return to work or resign.

Costco claimed that the plaintiff chose to resign. However, he claims the decision was not voluntary, and that he believed resigning was the only way to preserve future rehire eligibility.

The court rejected several of the plaintiff’s other claims, including whistleblower retaliation based on his past involvement in a 2001 class action over wage-and-hour violations. Those claims were found to be time-barred or unsupported by a sufficient causal connection.

Legal gray area for employers

The case highlights a recurring challenge for employers: how to handle leave extension requests once FMLA or statutory leave has been exhausted. Courts often evaluate these decisions on a highly fact-specific basis.

For example, in 2020, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employee’s request for a four-week extension after 16 weeks of medical leave was not unreasonable under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). By contrast, in 2021, the 5th Circuit ruled that an employee who exhausted FMLA leave and failed to provide a definite return-to-work date was not entitled to further ADA protection.

The ruling underscores the need for employers to document individualized assessments and engage in good faith with workers requesting leave beyond statutory minimums.