Managing leaves of absence — like those related to the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and pregnancy disability leave (PDL), to name just a few — can be very complicated, especially in California. And when employers are asked to provide employees with extended leaves of absence as a reasonable accommodation, it gets even more confusing. Recently, in an unpublished opinion, a California Court of Appeal reaffirms that employers are not required to provide an “indefinite” leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation (Manos v. J Paul Getty Tr., No. B322283, (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2025), as modified on denial of reh’g (Mar. 18, 2025)).
Employers can sometimes provide an extended disability leave as a reasonable accommodation — if it will likely be effective to allow the employee to return to work. It’s often used, for example, when an employee is recovering from an injury. Employers can find this type of accommodation challenging, however, when the leave is continually extended because no definitive rule decides when an extended leave becomes an undue hardship.
In this case, in 2011, the J Paul Getty Trust (Getty) hired George Manos (Manos) as an HVAC technician. In June 2019, while working, Manos fell off a ladder and fractured his left leg. Four days later, he submitted his first request for medical leave asking for an “indefinite” leave of absence. A doctor certified that he was “not able to perform work of any kind” and estimated he might be able to return to work in November 2019.
In November 2019, Manos submitted his second medical leave request in which he again indicated he needed “indefinite” leave. His doctor estimated a return to work by the end of January 2020. In January, however, Manos submitted a third request for medical leave, accompanied by documentation from his physician, estimating a return to work by the end of April 2020.
In advance of his anticipated April return, Getty asked Manos for any accommodations he believed would allow him to do his job, but Manos never responded to the request. In early April 2020, Manos submitted a fourth request for medical leave, against requesting “indefinite” leave. His physician estimated Manos would be able to return to work at the end of July.
Getty later asked Manos and his physician to complete an interactive process questionnaire to identify potential accommodations that would allow Manos to return to work. Less than two weeks later, in May 2020, Manos returned the completed questionnaire along with a signed copy of his job description. In the questionnaire, Manos stated he still couldn’t work and that he was not requesting accommodations “at this time,” instead requesting “continuous leave” for an unknown period. His physician indicated that the impairment was temporary and that the estimated duration was 12 to 18 months.
Based on the questionnaire responses, Getty determined that Manos was requesting indefinite leave and made the decision to terminate his employment. Eight months later, Manos sued under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for failure to provide reasonable accommodation as well as failure to engage in the interactive process, among other claims. The trial court ruled in favor of Getty, granting Getty’s motion for summary judgement, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
The court concluded that Getty reasonably accommodated Manos with medical leave for a year and terminated his employment based on evidence that Manos would not be able to return to work in the foreseeable future. It was undisputed that the only accommodation Manos requested following his workplace accident was medical leave, which Getty repeatedly granted. During that time, Manos requested leave four times — three of which, including his final request, sought “indefinite” leave. At the same time, Manos’ physician repeatedly certified that Manos was unable to perform any work, and the response to the questionnaire suggested only that Manos might be able to return in 12 to 18 months. Additionally, evidence showed that no alternative positions were available for Manos.
The Court of Appeal also agreed with the trial court that Getty properly engaged in the interactive process when it reached out to Manos to identify potential accommodations that would allow him to return to work. The first time Getty did this — in the spring of 2020 — Manos didn’t respond. Later, when Getty gave him the questionnaire, Manos advised that he was not requesting any accommodations at that time and was only requesting continuous leave.
Based on these circumstances, the court found that no reasonably jury could conclude that Getty failed to accommodate Manos or failed to engage in the interactive process.
Employer Takeaways
While no definitive rule exists on when extended medical leaves become undue hardships, this case reinforces prior court decisions concluding that employers are not required to wait “indefinitely” for an employee to recover from an injury. Additionally, the case offers employers several practical takeaways:
- Make reasonable efforts to engage in the interactive process. In this case, it was important that Getty reached out to Manos multiple times to try to determine what potential accommodations might allow him to return to work. Since Getty made and documented those inquiries, Manos’s claim that Getty failed to engage in the interactive process failed. When analyzing this issue, courts look at where the interactive process broke down between the employer and employee, so employers should make the effort to follow up and be responsive in these conversations.
- Grant extended — but finite — leave when warranted. Granting an extended leave as a reasonable accommodation continues to be a possibility that employers must consider, even if the employee has exhausted their leave time under the CFRA and other protected leaves. While engaging in the interactive process, employers should consider whether the leave would be effective in allowing the employee to return to work. As Getty did in this case, employers should continue to work with the employee and their physician to determine whether other accommodations would allow the employee to eventually return to work.
- Document the process. Employers should document all communications and correspondence when managing leaves of absence. Here, Getty was able to show that it continuously granted leave and communicated multiple times with Manos about potential accommodations, including the use of the interactive process questionnaire. This helped establish that Getty engaged in the interactive process, and through these communications, it became clear that Manos was only requesting indefinite leave and no other accommodations.
James W. Ward, J.D., Employment Law Subject Matter Expert/Legal Writer and Editor, CalChamber
CalChamber members can read more about Extended Disability Leave as Reasonable Accommodation in the HR Library. Not a member? See how CalChamber can help you.
