Blake Wentworth was an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley. The essential functions of his job included teaching, research, and service to the department and profession. Wentworth was struggling with his mental health.
In November 2014, Jefferey Hadler, chair of the department, told Wentworth that a graduate student had made an informal complaint that Wentworth had made her uncomfortable. Hadler conducted an investigation and believed he resolved the complaint to the satisfaction of the student. During the conversations related to the complaint, Wentworth told Handler that he had been diagnosed with bipolar II disorder. In February 2015, Wentworth was hospitalized after attempting to commit suicide.
After Wentworth returned to work, Hadler asked to meet to discuss how Wentworth’s disorder affected his ability to do his job. Hadler noted that Wentworth missed a week of class and failed to write a fellowship nomination letter. Hadler said he wanted to explore whether there were any accommodations that would allow Wentworth to fulfill the essential functions of his job.
Wentworth agreed to meet but initially resisted any suggestion that he needed accommodations. Wentworth insisted that his problems were only because his wife had left him. At this meeting, Wentworth asked Hadler about the possibility of teaching through the end of the semester and then taking research leave. However, the University did not offer research leave.
During this meeting, and consistent with University policies, Hadler offered Wentworth a medical leave, which involved: relieving him of all duties; stopping his tenure clock, which would require him to continue to teach and perform other duties, but push back his deadlines for completing a body of research for consideration for tenure purposes; and other unspecified accommodations. Following the meeting, Wentworth thanked Hadler for the conversation and said Hadler could get in touch with his doctor.
In early April 2015, students complained about Wentworth’s behavior. Some of the complaints alleged Wentworth held their hands, talked about his personal life, and said he was attracted to them.
Later in April 2015, Wentworth’s doctors wrote notes saying that he had a partial disability that prevented him from satisfying the research component of his duties; and requesting to stop his tenure clock for two semesters. In July 2015, the University approved his request for accommodation.
In October 2015, the University’s office for the prevention of harassment and discrimination completed its investigation into Wentworth’s conduct. The investigation concluded that Wentworth had violated policies on sexual harassment and failed to meet certain academic responsibilities. As a result, the University terminated Wentworth in May 2017.
In September 2016, Wentworth filed an action against the University, alleging several causes of action, including failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to provide reasonable accommodations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of the University on the claims of failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to provide reasonable accommodations. The majority of Wentworth’s remaining claims, including disability discrimination claims, went to trial.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings on the interactive process and reasonable accommodation claims because the evidence showed that the University engaged in the interactive process in good faith and offered a reasonable accommodation, which the professor did not assert was inadequate.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that when Wentworth was hospitalized after his suicide attempt, Hadler emailed and met with Wentworth, and offered different accommodations, including stopping his tenure track. Wentworth did not tell Hadler he was unable to teach; to the contrary, he asked to continue to teach and said that teaching was the only thing keeping him going. Similarly, after Hadler asked Wentworth to provide medical documentation of the functional limitations of his condition, Wentworth and his doctors only said he was unable to perform research, not unable to teach.
The Court noted that Wentworth initially resisted suggestions that his disability required accommodations, insisting his problems were only due to his wife leaving him. When Wentworth later requested to stop his tenure clock for two semesters due to his bipolar disorder, the University approved this request, as well.
Wentworth argued that the University punished him for disability-related conduct and chilled the interactive process when Hadler disciplined him, the University denied him reappointment, and the University investigators and academic senate recommended termination. The Court was not persuaded by these arguments. The Court reasoned that the jury trial already concluded that Wentworth’s disability was not a substantial motivating reason for the University’s adverse employment actions, and Wentworth’s efforts to avoid the significance of that finding were not reasonable.
Wentworth also argued that the University should have further engaged in the interactive process and offered to accommodate his disability by offering him research leave or active service modified duty, so he would not need to teach and could focus on research and writing. The Court found that this argument was not persuasive either because Wentworth’s doctors told the University that his disability impaired his ability to conduct research rather than teaching. Furthermore, the University was not obligated to offer these accommodations because stopping Wentworth’s tenure clock was an effective reasonable accommodation as it allowed Wentworth more time to amass his body of research while accommodating his inability to research and write effectively on a daily basis.
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling.
Wentworth v. Regents of University of California, 105 Cal.App.5th 580 (2024).
Note: This case illustrates the often-overlapping issues of providing employees with accommodations while also addressing misconduct and performance concerns. Here, the University was able to keep the two issues separate, and support that the professor’s misconduct, rather than his disability, was the motivating factor for ending his employment.