Injury, Leave & Demotion: Miller v. CDCR Disability Case
/
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, has affirmed summary judgment for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in Miller v. CDCR (Case No. E081230), holding that the agency lawfully placed an injured correctional officer on unpaid leave after she could no longer perform the essential duties of her job.
The Case: Miller v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
The Court: California Fourth Appellate District Division Two
The Case No.: E081230 (Super.Ct.No. CVRI2000221)
The Plaintiff: Miller v. CDCR
Maria Miller, a correctional officer injured in a 2016 slip-and-fall, exhausted workers' comp benefits by 2018. Facing permanent medical restrictions (that were later compounded by a disclosed mental-health condition), she declined CDCR's offer of a "medical demotion" to a lighter-duty position and remained on unpaid leave. In 2020, she filed a lawsuit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
The Defendant: Miller v. CDCR
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Miller's employer, is responsible for ensuring correctional-facility security while accommodating employees' disabilities in compliance with FEHA.
The Case: Miller v. CDCR
Claims: disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation.
Trial Court (Riverside County): Granted summary judgment for CDCR, finding Miller could not perform essential correctional-officer functions and that CDCR offered reasonable accommodations she refused.
Court of Appeal Ruling: Affirmed.
Key points: An employer may take adverse action when an employee's disability renders it impossible to perform essential duties.
CDCR met its burden by offering a medical demotion; disability retirement is not a reasonable accommodation under FEHA. Even if the interactive process was imperfect, liability requires proof that a feasible accommodation existed and was withheld.
The Main Questions in the Case: Miller v. CDCR
When an employee's permanent medical restrictions prevent them from performing essential job functions, can an employer satisfy the FEHA by offering alternative positions, and by doing so, can they avoid liability? Does it change the situation if the employee refuses the alternate position and alleges flaws in the interactive process? After considering these essential questions, the appellate court ruled in favor of CDCR.
FAQ: Miller v. CDCR
Q: Why wasn't disability retirement considered a reasonable accommodation?
A: FEHA defines a reasonable accommodation as a workplace adjustment enabling the employee to perform the job, whereas disability retirement removes the employee from the workforce altogether, contrary to FEHA's goal of keeping employees working when possible.
Q: Does an employer's imperfect interactive process automatically create liability?
A: No. An employee must demonstrate a specific, objectively available accommodation that the employer failed to provide; absent that, procedural flaws alone are insufficient.
Q: What is a "medical demotion," and is it legal?
A: A medical demotion reassigns an employee to a lower-level role compatible with medical restrictions, often with reinstatement rights if health improves. Courts view it as a legitimate accommodation when higher-level duties can't be performed.
Q: Can failure to accommodate double as disability discrimination?
A: Not necessarily. An employer may be liable for failing to accommodate without being liable for discrimination if no adverse employment action stems from bias.
Q: What lessons does this case offer California employers?
A: Document essential job functions, explore all viable accommodations—including reassignment—and remember that FEHA liability hinges on whether a workable accommodation existed, not on perfection in the dialogue.
If you have questions about filing a workplace discrimination complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
