Your Doctor’s Restrictions Don’t Automatically Justify Termination

Employees returning to work after an injury sometimes encounter an unexpected problem: their employer decides that a medical restriction means they can no longer perform their job.

But a medical report does not necessarily give an employer a free pass to terminate an employee. A federal court’s decision in Narayan v. Compass Group USA, Inc. provides a useful example. The employee had worked for the company for approximately 32 years, suffered a knee injury, underwent surgery, and returned to work. He then performed his job for months before the company received a medical report that it interpreted as imposing permanent work restrictions.

Instead of resolving conflicting medical information and meaningfully involving the employee in the interactive process as required by both the California FEHA and ADA, the employer terminated him. The court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss, allowing the employee’s disability discrimination and related claims to proceed.

The Employee Returned to Work and Performed His Job

Atish Narayan worked as a vault cashier for Canteen, a division of Compass Group. His job involved receiving, counting, storing, and distributing cash and coins. After working for the company for more than three decades, Narayan injured his knee at work in 2015. He eventually underwent surgery and took medical leave.

In August 2016, he returned to work. This fact became particularly important: Narayan did not merely claim that he was capable of returning. He actually returned and performed his job for approximately six months.

His treating medical providers, including the surgeon who performed his knee operation, had also provided documentation indicating that he could return to full-time work without restrictions. The problem arose when Compass (the employer) subsequently received a report prepared in connection with Narayan’s workers’ compensation case.

The Employer Interpreted a Medical Report as Saying He Could Not Do His Job

A Qualified Medical Examiner, or QME, stated in a supplemental report that Narayan was unable to kneel, squat, or run. Compass interpreted those statements as work restrictions that prevented Narayan from performing the essential functions of his vault cashier position. But there were reasons to question that conclusion. Narayan’s treating physicians had released him to work. He had already been performing the job without issue for months. The company’s own job description indicated that activities such as kneeling and crouching were required only occasionally.

Perhaps most importantly, Compass apparently did not contact the QME to clarify what the report actually meant before terminating Narayan. The physician later explained that he had not intended his report to prevent Narayan from returning to his regular occupation.

Employers Should Not Automatically Treat Every Medical Restriction as Disqualifying

One of the most useful aspects of the court’s decision concerns an employer’s reliance on medical reports. California disability law generally requires more than simply locating restrictive language in a medical document and using it as a basis for termination. Relying on the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp., the court in the Narayan decision explained that an employer cannot simply “slavishly defer to a physician’s opinion” without considering whether the conclusion is objectively reasonable.

That principle was especially important in Narayan’s situation. The employer had evidence pointing in different directions. One medical report contained language the company interpreted as restrictions. Other medical providers had cleared Narayan to work. And Narayan’s actual performance demonstrated that he had been doing the job for months. Those circumstances raised a legitimate question about whether the employer should have investigated further before deciding that Narayan could no longer perform his job.

Workers’ Compensation Restrictions and the Ability to Work Are Not Necessarily the Same Thing

The decision also highlights an important distinction between workers’ compensation terminology and disability discrimination law. A workers’ compensation physician may describe an employee as “permanent and stationary” or identify restrictions intended to protect the employee against reinjury. That does not necessarily mean the employee is incapable of working.

As the court explained, “permanent and stationary” is a workers’ compensation term indicating that the employee’s condition has stabilized. Restrictions may also be prophylactic and intended to reduce the possibility of reinjury rather than to declare that the employee physically cannot perform an activity. Employers should therefore be careful about taking language prepared for one purpose and automatically treating it as conclusive proof that an employee cannot perform a job.

What California Employees Can Learn From This Case

Employees facing similar circumstances should preserve evidence concerning both their medical condition and what they were actually capable of doing at work.

That can include:

• medical releases and doctors’ notes;
• job descriptions;
• emails with HR or management concerning restrictions;
• requests for accommodation or leave;
• communications concerning the employee’s return to work;
• evidence showing what physical tasks the employee actually performed;
• performance evaluations or other evidence showing successful performance after returning from leave; and
• termination letters identifying medical restrictions or inability to accommodate as the reason for termination.

An employee who receives a questionable medical restriction should also consider asking the physician to clarify exactly what the restriction means and whether the restriction are actually correct as stated.

And if an employer says that a medical restriction prevents an employee from doing the job, the employee should consider responding in writing if that conclusion is incorrect—particularly if the employee has actually been performing the supposedly prohibited work.

The Larger Lesson

The most important lesson from Narayan v. Compass Group USA, Inc. is simple:

A medical report should not automatically end the discussion about whether an employee can continue working.

California disability law can require an employer to look at what the employee can actually do, evaluate medical information reasonably, communicate with the employee, and consider possible accommodations before deciding that termination is the only option. An employer that instead treats an ambiguous medical restriction as an automatic reason to terminate an employee may create precisely the kind of factual dispute that California’s disability discrimination laws are intended to address.

Narayan v. Compass Group USA, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00999-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2020).