George Manos, an HVAC technician who had been working at the J. Paul Getty Trust (the “Getty”) in 2011, job required significant physical labor, including standing, climbing, and lifting heavy equipment. In 2018, he complained to Human Resources (HR) that he was being threatened, harassed, and belittled by his supervisors and colleagues. He also related that two days earlier, he felt “so stressed out” after a conversation with one of these colleagues that he began to have chest pains and went to the hospital. Getty’s HR department conducted an internal review, and Manos ultimately stated that he was not feeling harassed, only that he wanted to work in a more civil environment.
The following year, in June 2019, Manos suffered a workplace injury when he fell off a ladder and fractured his left leg. He went on medical leave and requested multiple extensions, each supported by documentation from his physician stating that he was unable to perform any work. Initially, his doctor estimated that he might be able to return to work in November 2019, but as the months passed, Manos continued to seek additional leave extensions, each time noting that he remained unable to work.
Once Manos’ 12 weeks of protected leave expired, the Getty continued to accommodate Manos’s requests for over a year, placing him on inactive status and informing him that his return was not guaranteed if he did not return within 90 days. In April 2020, Manos submitted another request for leave without a definite end date. The Getty then asked him to complete an interactive process questionnaire, where he was given the opportunity to propose accommodations that might allow him to return to work. In his responses, Manos confirmed that he was unable to stand, walk without assistance, squat, kneel, or lift heavy objects. He also stated that he was not requesting any accommodations at that time but rather continuous leave. His doctor estimated that his impairment would last another 12 to 18 months.
After reviewing the completed questionnaire, the Getty’s HR team concluded that this amounted to a request for indefinite leave, which they determined was unreasonable. In June 2020, the Getty terminated Manos’s employment, stating that he could not return to work in the foreseeable future.
In February 2021, Manos filed a lawsuit against the Getty, arguing that his termination violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). He alleged that the Getty had failed to accommodate his disability and had not properly engaged in the interactive process to identify potential accommodations. He also claimed that his firing was retaliatory, either for his 2018 harassment complaints or for his requests for accommodations.
The Getty moved for summary judgment, contending that Manos had been granted more than a year of leave, had failed to propose any accommodations that would allow him to return to work, and remained unable to work even after his termination. The Getty further argued that there was no causal link between his 2018 harassment complaint and his termination in 2020. Additionally, the Getty pointed out that there were no vacant positions at the time that Manos could have filled, as all available jobs still required physical capabilities that he did not have.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Getty. On the claims of failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process, the trial court found that Manos had only requested additional leave as an accommodation, which the Getty provided for over a year, and that he did not identify any accommodations that would allow him to return to work. The trial court emphasized that employers are not required under California law to provide indefinite leave as an accommodation, particularly when there is no reasonable certainty that an employee will be able to return to work in the near future. The trial court also pointed out that Manos had not responded to the Getty’s specific request to suggest reasonable accommodations that could allow him to return to work.
On the retaliation claim, the trial court found no evidence that Manos’s termination was linked to his harassment complaints from 2018. The trial court noted that two years had passed between his complaints and his termination and that he had been on medical leave for over a year before his termination. Since there was no temporal proximity or other evidence linking his prior complaints to his termination, the trial court ruled that Manos had failed to establish a causal connection. Additionally, the trial court rejected Manos’s alternative argument that the Getty retaliated against him for requesting accommodations, concluding that there was no evidence of retaliatory intent. The trial court further held that Manos’s argument regarding an available security officer position was raised too late, as it had not been included in his complaint.
Because Manos’s claims under FEHA were dismissed, his claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy also failed. The trial court ruled that without an underlying violation of law, there was no basis for a wrongful termination claim.
On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The appellate court agreed that indefinite leave is not a reasonable accommodation under California law and that the Getty had engaged in a good-faith interactive process by allowing Manos multiple opportunities to request accommodations, which he failed to do. The Court of Appeal also found that the trial court properly dismissed the retaliation claim, emphasizing the lack of a causal link between Manos’s prior complaints and his termination. In affirming the decision, the appellate court held that the Getty had fulfilled its legal obligations and was justified in terminating Manos’s employment when it became clear that he could not return to work and that no reasonable accommodations were available. As a result, Manos’s claims were rejected and summary judgment on behalf of the Getty was affirmed.
Manos v. J Paul Getty Trust (Feb. 21, 2025) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2025 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1042].
Note: This case reinforces that while employers, including private schools, must engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations, they are not required to grant indefinite leave when an employee cannot identify a reasonable return date.