Exhaustion of Leave Under the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law does not Prevent an Employee from Making a Claim Under the FEHA, Court of Appeal Rules
2 min read
Feb 25, 2013
In Sanchez v. Swissport, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, determined that an employee who has exhausted all permissible leave available under the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL), Gov. Code 12945, can also state a cause of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code 12900 et seq.
Plaintiff requested temporary leave from her job with Swissport due to a high-risk pregnancy. She alleged in her complaint that Swissport granted her the four months of disability leave, which is the amount of leave an employer must allow for under the provisions of the PDLL. However, she also alleged she was entitled to additional leave as reasonable accommodations for her pregnancy-related disability under the FEHA, independent of the leave provisions provided in the PDLL. Swissport argued that, once it had fulfilled its requirement to provide four months of leave under the PDLL, it necessarily satisfied all of its obligations under the FEHA.
The Court of Appeal agreed with Plaintiff, and not with Swissport. As the Court explained, the requirements of the PDLL were meant to augment, not supplant, those set forth elsewhere in the FEHA. For this reason, an employer might satisfy its requirements under the PDLL, but still might have additional requirements under the FEHA.
The FEHA requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee suffering from a disability, including the temporary impairments associated with pregnancy, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would produce undue hardship to its operation. There are no statutory limits on the amount of leave that might be required as a reasonable accommodation under the FEHA.
Thus, where an employee requires reasonable accommodation of her pregnancy in the form of leave that exceeds four months, and where the employer is able to provide such accommodation without undue hardship, the employer is not permitted to terminate the employee simply because she has already been on leave for four months, and thus exhausted the leave provisions of the PDLL.
Please contact Michael Newman if you would like to discuss the issues in this article.
Featured Insights

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

