Wilcox v. Molina Healthcare CA2/4

Filed 4/25/25 Wilcox v. Molina Healthcare CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

MAURILIO WILCOX, B334728

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 21STCV07894) MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Upinder S. Kalra, Judge. Affirmed. Employees First Labor Law, Jonathan P. LaCour and Lisa Noveck for Plaintiff and Appellant. Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester, Al M. De La Cruz and Mark R. Wilson for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

When Maurilio Wilcox did not return to work after his approved medical leave expired on August 4, 2020, Molina Healthcare, Inc. (Molina) terminated his employment. Wilcox sued Molina for disability-related causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). After trial, a jury returned a special verdict, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of Molina based on the jury’s factual findings. On appeal, Wilcox argues he is entitled to a new trial because of inconsistent factual findings by the jury. The jury found that Wilcox requested a reasonable accommodation for a physical condition. It also found that Molina was unaware of Wilcox’s physical condition. Wilcox asserts that these positions are inherently inconsistent. Wilcox does not rely on any facts to support his position. Indeed, neither the record nor argument on appeal discloses the specific physical condition from which Wilcox suffered. Nonetheless, Wilcox argues that a jury can never find an employer is unaware of an employee’s physical condition if it also finds that the employee requested a reasonable accommodation for that physical condition. We disagree with Wilcox. A request for a reasonable accommodation does not necessarily impart knowledge to the employer that the employee does, in fact, suffer from any specific physical condition that limits a major life activity.1 In fact, the

1 A qualifying physical disability under FEHA is one that limits a major life activity. (Gov. Code., § 12926, subd. (m)(1)(B).)