Vaca v. Raypak CA2/6

Filed 10/18/22 Vaca v. Raypak CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

FRANCISCO VACA, 2d Civ. No. B313912 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2018- Plaintiff and Appellant, 00519590-CU-WT-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

RAYPAK, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

An employee brought an action alleging causes of action relating to wrongful termination. The employer moved for summary judgment. The uncontested evidence showed that at the time of the employee’s termination he was recovering from a recent liver transplant and could not work even with reasonable accommodations for approximately one to two years thereafter. The trial court granted the employer summary judgment. We affirm. FACTS Francisco Vaca began working as an assembler/machine operator for Raypak, Inc. (Raypak) in 1989. In September 2015,

Vaca took a medical leave due to a problem with his liver. He ultimately had a liver transplant in October 2016. Vaca had been unable to work since September 2015. On October 24, 2016, Raypak sent him a letter by certified mail informing him that his unpaid medical leave expired on December 9, 2015, and that if he did not return to work by November 1, 2016, Raypak would assume he had voluntarily resigned. Vaca claims he never saw the letter until his deposition in this case. Raypak terminated Vaca’s employment on November 1, 2016. Raypak sent Vaca another letter dated November 1, 2016, informing him that his employment had been terminated. Vaca claims he did not see that letter either. Vaca claims he did not learn that his employment had been terminated until he went to Raypak to pick up a check on December 9, 2016. In interrogatories, Vaca was asked to identify the date ranges he contends he could have worked 40 hours per week for Raypak with reasonable accommodations. He answered, “In or around October/November 2017 to the present.” He also answered that his doctor first cleared him to return to work for any employment, “[i]n or about October/November 2017.” Vaca’s doctor testified that given Vaca’s medical history he would recommend that Vaca remain off work for at least one year after his transplant surgery. On August 16, 2017, Vaca filed a workers’ compensation claim, alleging multiple hernias and injuries to his neck, back, and shoulder.1