Interference vs. Retaliation: A Critical Distinction

 

CFRA and FMLA both prohibit two analytically distinct types of employer conduct: interference and retaliation. Interference means the employer denied, restrained, or otherwise impeded the exercise of a leave right. Retaliation means the employer took adverse action against the employee because the employee requested or used leave.

 

The significance of this distinction lies in the proof required. Interference claims do not require the employee to show discriminatory intent — if the employer denied a qualifying leave request, that is sufficient.

 

Retaliation claims require proof of a causal link between the protected activity (requesting leave) and the adverse employment action. In practice, many cases involve both theories, and an experienced attorney will plead both.

​

Intermittent Leave — A Common Source of Violations

 

CFRA and FMLA permit employees with serious health conditions to take leave intermittently or on a reduced schedule when medically necessary — meaning in separate blocks of time, or by reducing the daily or weekly work schedule.

 

This is particularly significant for employees managing chronic conditions such as cancer, diabetes, anxiety disorders, or autoimmune diseases that require periodic medical appointments or flare-related absences.

​

Employers with “no-fault” attendance policies — those that discipline or terminate employees who accumulate a certain number of absences regardless of cause — frequently commit CFRA and FMLA violations by counting intermittent leave absences toward the discipline threshold.

 

Under both statutes, absences that qualify for intermittent leave cannot be counted against an employee in an attendance analysis. Employers that fail to recognize the medical basis for absences, or that fail to notify employees of their right to designate absences as protected intermittent leave, face significant liability.

​

Common Examples of Medical Leave Violations in California

 

The following scenarios reflect the most frequently litigated medical leave violation patterns in California. Each is grounded in the statutory and case law framework described above.

 

Example 1: Termination During CFRA Leave — The Classic Retaliation Pattern

A customer service manager at a retail company in Los Angeles requests and is approved for 10 weeks of CFRA leave following a cancer diagnosis. During week seven, she received a termination letter citing “corporate restructuring.”

 

No other positions at her level are eliminated during the restructuring period, and her direct supervisor had expressed frustration with her leave at the time of the request.

 

The timing, the absence of genuine restructuring affecting comparable positions, and the supervisor’s documented frustration together establish a compelling retaliation claim under CFRA § 12945.2(t) and FEHA § 12940(h).

 

Because her cancer also constitutes a disability under FEHA’s broad definition, a separate disability discrimination claim is well-supported.

​

Example 2: Failure to Reinstate After Medical Leave

A software engineer takes 12 weeks of CFRA leave for a serious back injury. When he attempts to return, his employer tells him that his position has been “restructured” and offers him a junior role at a 25% pay cut.

 

CFRA § 12945.2(a) guarantees reinstatement to the same position or a comparable one with equivalent pay, benefits, and responsibilities. A junior role at a lower salary is not a comparable position.

 

The employer’s failure to reinstate constitutes a direct CFRA violation, and if the restructuring was fabricated or selectively applied to the employee who took leave, it also supports a retaliation claim. In California wrongful termination cases, this pattern is among the most clearly actionable in medical leave litigation.

​

Example 3: Denial of Intermittent Leave Under a No-Fault Policy

A warehouse employee with Crohn’s disease experiences periodic flares that require him to miss work for one or two days at a time, approximately six times per year. His employer’s no-fault attendance policy terminates employees who accumulate more than eight absences in a 12-month period.

 

The employer has not designated his medically-caused absences as CFRA intermittent leave, and after his ninth absence, he was terminated. His physician has been treating his condition as a chronic, serious health condition meeting the CFRA definition.

 

His absences qualified for protected intermittent leave; the employer’s failure to designate them and its application of the no-fault policy to protected absences constitute both interference with his CFRA rights and a FEHA disability discrimination claim.

​

Example 4: PDL Retaliation and Pregnancy Discrimination

A marketing coordinator informs her employer at 16 weeks of pregnancy that she will need PDL for approximately 8 weeks around her due date.

 

Her employer, within weeks of this disclosure, begins issuing her first critical performance reviews in three years of employment, places her on a performance improvement plan at 30 weeks, and terminates her at 34 weeks for “failure to meet performance benchmarks.”

 

The sequence — disclosure of pregnancy, sudden performance criticism, rapid escalation, and termination before leave begins — is a paradigmatic pregnancy discrimination and PDL retaliation pattern. Both Gov. Code § 12945 (PDL) and Gov. Code § 12940(a) (FEHA pregnancy discrimination) are implicated.

 

The employer must show that the performance issues were genuine, pre-dated the pregnancy disclosure, and would have led to the same outcome absent the pregnancy.

​

Example 5: Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process After Leave Exhaustion

A nurse at a hospital takes 12 weeks of CFRA leave for treatment of a spinal condition. At the end of the leave, her physician indicates she can return to work with a restriction on lifting more than 20 pounds for an additional 60 days.

 

The hospital terminates her rather than exploring whether a temporary light-duty assignment or a brief schedule modification could accommodate the restriction.

 

Under Sanchez v. Swissport, the hospital’s obligation to engage in the interactive process under FEHA § 12940(n) did not expire when the CFRA leave ended.

 

Its failure to discuss any accommodation options before terminating an otherwise qualified employee who simply needed a temporary work modification is a textbook failure-to-accommodate and failure-to-engage claim under FEHA.

​

Example 6: FMLA Notice Violation

An employee misses five consecutive days of work for a hospitalization related to a heart condition. His employer counts the absences under the no-fault policy and issues a final warning, without ever notifying him of his FMLA eligibility or designating the absences as FMLA-protected.

 

Under 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.300–825.301, employers who receive notice of a potentially qualifying reason for absence must notify the employee of FMLA eligibility within five business days and designate the leave within the same timeframe.

 

The employer’s failure to provide required notices and its use of protected absences in the attendance analysis constitute FMLA interference, entitling the employee to remedies including reinstatement and back pay.

​

Legal Framework: Statutes, Regulations, and Case Law

 

CFRA — Government Code § 12945.2

 

The California Family Rights Act is codified at Government Code § 12945.2 and enforced by the California Civil Rights Department (CRD).

 

The statute prohibits an employer from ‘refus[ing] to grant a request by any employee with more than 12 months of service’ for qualifying leave (Gov. Code § 12945.2(a)), and independently prohibits interference, restraint, denial, or discrimination in connection with the exercise of CFRA rights (Gov. Code § 12945.2(t)).

 

The prohibition on interference extends beyond direct denial — discouraging an employee from taking leave, manipulating the conditions of leave, or making the leave process unduly burdensome are all actionable.

​

FMLA — 29 U.S.C. § 2601 and 29 C.F.R. Part 825

 

The federal FMLA is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division. Its anti-interference provision (29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1)) and anti-retaliation provision (§ 2615(a)(2)) mirror the CFRA framework. FMLA’s implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R.

 

Part 825 contains detailed requirements for employer notice obligations, medical certification procedures, and the designation of qualifying absences as FMLA leave.

 

Employer compliance failures in these procedural areas — failing to issue the required eligibility notice, failing to designate qualifying absences, or improperly requesting excessive medical information — are independent violations even when the underlying leave was approved.

​

PDL — Government Code § 12945 and 2 C.C.R. §§ 11035–11051

The PDL statute and its detailed implementing regulations impose specific requirements on covered employers: they must provide up to four months of leave, maintain health benefits during leave, offer a right to transfer to a less strenuous position when medically necessary, and reinstate the employee to the same or comparable position.

 

Critically, Gov. Code § 12945(a)(4) separately prohibits employer interference with, restraint of, or denial of the exercise of any PDL right — a standalone cause of action that does not require proof of retaliation or discriminatory intent.

​

Key Case Law

 

Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc., 213 Cal.App.4th 1331 (2013): Exhaustion of PDL leave does not cap the employer’s obligation to provide additional leave as a reasonable accommodation under FEHA. The employer must engage in the interactive process even after statutory leave ends and may be required to provide extended leave depending on the facts.

​

Moore v. Regents of University of California, 206 Cal.App.4th 646 (2012): Confirmed that CFRA retaliation claims require the employee to show that the protected leave was a substantial motivating reason for the adverse action — not the sole reason. The same substantial motivating factor standard from Harris v. City of Santa Monica applies to FEHA discrimination cases.

​

Faust v. California Portland Cement Co., 150 Cal.App.4th 864 (2007): Held that an employer who terminates an employee during a medical leave, without a legitimate business reason established independently of the leave, faces a strong inference of CFRA retaliation based on temporal proximity alone.

​

Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Assn., 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001): FMLA and ADA case (applicable to California through FEHA’s parallel disability provisions) holding that an employer must consider leave as a reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee who has exhausted FMLA, and that failure to do so before termination is actionable as disability discrimination.

​

The Serious Health Condition Requirement

Both CFRA and FMLA limit protected leave to “serious health conditions” — defined as illnesses, injuries, impairments, or physical or mental conditions involving either inpatient care or continuing treatment by a health care provider. California courts and the Department of Labor have consistently interpreted this definition broadly.

 

An employee does not need to have a condition that is “serious” in the lay sense of the word. Any condition that incapacitates the employee from working or from regular daily activities for more than three calendar days AND requires continuing treatment by a healthcare provider qualifies, regardless of its perceived severity.

 

Employers who deny leave because they subjectively believe the condition is not “bad enough” routinely commit CFRA violations.

​

How to Prove a Medical Leave Violation Claim

 

Medical leave violation cases are built from documentation. Courts and juries respond to the paper record: leave requests, medical certifications, HR communications, attendance logs, performance reviews, and the timing of adverse actions relative to protected activity.

 

The legal framework — interference or retaliation, CFRA or FEHA — determines which elements must be proven, but the evidentiary foundation is the same across most claims.

​

For Interference Claims (CFRA/FMLA)

​

To establish interference with CFRA or FMLA rights, the employee must show:

​

• Eligibility: The employee met the 12-month / 1,250-hour tenure requirements (or PDL’s no-tenure-required standard).

​

• Qualifying reason: The leave was requested or needed for a serious health condition (or pregnancy disability for PDL).

​

• Notice: The employee gave adequate notice of the need for leave — 30 days for foreseeable leave, or as soon as practicable for unexpected leave.

​

• Denial or interference: The employer denied the request, discouraged the leave, failed to designate qualifying absences, counted protected leave against an attendance policy, or otherwise impeded the exercise of leave rights.

​

• Harm: The interference caused the employee to suffer damages — lost wages, lost benefits, termination, or other adverse consequences.

 

Critically, interference claims under CFRA and FMLA do not require proof of discriminatory intent. If the employer denied qualifying leave — even inadvertently — that is a violation.

​

For Retaliation Claims (CFRA/FMLA/FEHA)

​

To establish retaliation for taking or requesting protected medical leave, the employee must show:

​

• Protected activity: The employee requested or took CFRA, FMLA, or PDL leave, or opposed an unlawful denial of such leave.

​

• Employer knowledge: The employer was aware of the leave or request at the time of the adverse action.

​

• Adverse employment action: The employer terminated, demoted, reduced pay, or otherwise materially penalized the employee.

​

• Causal connection: The protected activity was a substantial motivating reason for the adverse action. Courts analyze this through temporal proximity, shifting explanations, comparative treatment of employees who did not take leave, and inconsistencies between the stated reason and the documentary record.

​

Critical Evidence Categories