Lawsuit accuses Western University of Health Sciences of disability discrimination

Huprich Law Firm says it represents a former Western University of Health Sciences employee in a California lawsuit over alleged disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and retaliation tied to medical leave requests in Pomona. The case could test how employers handle leave extensions, documentation and the interactive process under state law.

Why it matters: - The case centers on California employers’ duties to evaluate disability accommodations and medical leave requests in good faith. - The allegations could be relevant to universities and other employers that manage employee medical documentation and return-to-work decisions. - The lawsuit seeks damages, fees and a jury trial, which could raise the stakes if the claims survive the legal process.

What happened: - Huprich Law Firm filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against Western University of Health Sciences and Doe defendants. - The lawsuit alleges disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process and retaliation tied to protected medical leave requests at the university’s Pomona campus. - The case number is 26STCV21818. - A related California Civil Rights Department matter number is 202607-36004603.

The details: - The employee began work at Western University of Health Sciences in March 2023 as an Administrative Assistant II in the Department of Physician Assistant Education. - Her job included general office and student-facing administrative support. - After her father died in May 2025, the employee allegedly experienced severe depression, anxiety and grief and sought medical treatment. - She took an approved medical leave starting in August 2025 and returned on November 12, 2025. - On November 17, 2025, she told Human Resources she might need additional leave as a reasonable accommodation while waiting for further medical evaluation. - The complaint says her medical provider later submitted documentation excusing her from work through about December 31, 2025. - The provider also sent a completed supplemental medical questionnaire on November 25, 2025, confirming the need for extended leave. - Human Resources allegedly said the documentation had not been received or was insufficient. - The employee allegedly resent medical records and asked Human Resources what else was needed. - The complaint says she was given a December 5, 2025 deadline, but the university did not clearly identify the missing information or provide written instructions on how to fix it. - The university allegedly terminated her employment on December 9, 2025, citing job abandonment. - The complaint contends the termination came after requests for disability-related accommodation and additional medical leave. - The lawsuit asserts eight causes of action: FEHA disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, FEHA retaliation, CFRA interference, retaliation for requesting CFRA leave, failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, and adverse actions in violation of public policy. - The complaint alleges the employee’s disability-related circumstances and protected leave requests were substantial motivating factors in the adverse actions. - Joseph Huprich of Huprich Law Firm, PC, is listed as counsel for the plaintiff. - The firm is based in Ontario, California, and represents employees in employment-related matters. - The lawsuit seeks economic and non-economic damages, potential punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief. - The complaint also demands a jury trial.

Between the lines: - The complaint puts the interactive process front and center, especially the employer’s obligation to clearly explain what documentation is needed and give the employee a fair chance to respond. - The timing of the termination, coming days after the leave-related exchange, will likely be a key issue if the case moves forward. - The press release frames the dispute as a broader reminder to document accommodation decisions carefully and avoid termination decisions that could be linked to protected leave requests.

What's next: - The claims remain allegations and have not been proven in court. - Western University of Health Sciences has not been adjudged liable based on the complaint. - The case will move through the California civil process, where the parties can contest the facts and legal claims. - The plaintiff is seeking remedies available under California law, including damages, fees and other relief.