Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central
Filed April 07, 2008
Supreme Court of California
Cite as 2008 SOS 2046

California Supreme Court decreed on CFRA issues

This case involves the state's version of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (CFRA).

The pertinent facts of the case are as follows:

Antonina Lonicki, a certified technician of sterile processing, was employed as a technician by Sutter Health Central at its hospital in Roseville. Lonicki was responsible for picking up equipment and processing instruments utilized in patient care.

In January 1999, Lonicki also started working for Kaiser (a competitor of Sutter Health Central) in its sterile processing department.

On July 26, 1999, Lonicki arrived for work at Sutter Health Central in her normal shift. Later she was told by her supervisor that she had a new shift that would start at noon and run to 8:30 p.m. She left in tears for the sudden event.

Lonicki subsequently filled out a form requesting a one-month leave of absence. The request was supported by a note from a nurse practitioner.

A doctor had certified her for leave based on depression and stress allegedly caused by overwork and an unexpected work reassignment.

Sutter denied Lonicki's request because one of its own doctors had declared the woman was fit for work, was able to work without any restrictions and because she was continuing to do an almost identical job for competitor Kaiser Permanente on weekends.

Lonicki conferred with the union representatives about his concerns.

The union representative had made a discussion with the Sutter Health Central. After discussions with Lonicki's union representative, the Company agreed to allow Lonicki to use her paid time off, but not to grant her medical leave.

Lonicki was then instructed to return to work no later than August 23 or she would be fired. Lonicki had stated that she was unable to return to work until August 27.

On August 26, Lonicki consulted a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist diagnosed Lonicki with major depression, opined that her symptoms were work-related, and advised her to remain off from work for another month.

The following day, Lonicki brought the psychiatrist's note to work in Sutter Health Central.

It was then that Lonicki was told that she had been discharged for her failure to appear for work on August 23 and August 24.

Lonicki asked for and received a "right to sue" letter from the state agency with oversight of the CFRA, the Department of Fair Employment & Housing (DFEH).

Following the series of events, Lonicki then filed suit in Sacramento County Superior Court. Lonicki sued her ex-employer, Sutter Health Central for denying her request for medical leave in 1999.

In her suit, Lonicki maintained that Sutter Health Central violated the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) by denying her request for medical leave.

The Sutter Health Central moved for summary judgment based on the ground that, Lonicki was not suffering from a serious health condition, which would entitle her to a statutory medical leave, and thus her discharge did not violate the CFRA.

The motion was supported by undisputed evidence that throughout the relevant time, Antonina Lonicki was successfully performing functions of an identical job for Kaiser Hospital (their competitor) in the same geographic area.

The Sacramento County Superior Court granted Sutter Health Central’s summary judgment motions and dismissed Lonicki's lawsuit.

Lonicki appealed from the judgment of dismissal to the Court of Appeals of California. The Court of Appeal later affirmed the decision of the Sacramento County Superior Court. In part, the court of appeal agreed with the trial court. It reasoned that Lonicki is able for work but is unwilling to do so.

Thus, Antonina Lonicki filed a petition for review to the Supreme Court of California.

The Supreme Court considered two issues:

1. Could the employer just fire Lonicki without seeking additional medical certifications as provided by the CFRA statute?


2. If an employee seeks FMLA/CFRA leave for her own health condition, and she works another job, does she really have a serious health condition?

In granting Antonina Lonicki’s petition for review, the Supreme Court of California has these to say:

• The employers cannot fire without undergoing proper procedure. The court opined that the employer must follow that procedure before denying leave based on an employer's belief that the employee is not eligible for leave.


• The employer's failure to invoke CFRA’s dispute-resolution mechanism and obtain a binding determination by a third healthcare provider did not bar it from later claiming that employee did not suffer from a serious health condition and was capable of performing her job.


• Trial court erred in granting summary judgment for employer on basis that employee continued to perform similar job for another employer on part-time basis during period in which medical leave was sought because second job, while evidence of ability to do similar work for original employer, was not conclusive.