How Indefinite Return-to-Work Dates Can Make or Break a California Disability Discrimination Claim

If you were fired while on medical leave in California, you may be wondering whether what happened to you was disability discrimination under state law. That is a fair question, and it is one I hear almost every week. The answer is not automatic. Being fired while on leave does not, by itself, mean your employer broke the law. In many cases, the outcome turns on a narrow but critical issue that most employees do not realize matters until it is too late: the wording and timing of your doctor’s notes, especially whether they included a clear, fixed return-to-work date.

I’m Matt Ruggles and I’ve been practicing employment law in California for more than 30 years. I have handled hundreds of disability discrimination cases, both as a former defense lawyer representing corporate employers and now exclusively representing employees. I have seen these cases succeed, and I have seen them fail, often for reasons that have nothing to do with how sympathetic the employee’s situation was. Again and again, the turning point is whether the employee was on an authorized leave of absence that the employer was legally required to provide as a reasonable accommodation, and whether the medical documentation in place at the time of termination supported a real, near-term return to work.

I wrote this blog because too many disability discrimination cases quietly rise or fall on doctor’s notes that were vague, open-ended, or never updated. Employees assume their employer understands they will be back eventually. Courts do not assume that. This article explains how return-to-work dates are evaluated under California law, why unclear or “indefinite” medical notes are so dangerous, and how to assess whether your medical documentation supports a potential disability discrimination claim. If you were terminated while on leave, read this carefully. It will help you understand whether the paperwork you had in place at the time actually protected you, or whether it left your employer room to lawfully say no.

Summary of Key Takeaways for California Employees

If you were fired while on medical leave in California, these are the points that matter most:

• Being fired while on medical leave does not automatically mean your employer broke the law.
• Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), medical leave is a reasonable accommodation only if it is likely to allow a return to work.
• The wording and timing of your doctor’s notes often decide the case, not how serious your condition was.
• “Indefinite” leave does not mean long leave. It means unclear leave with no reasonably foreseeable return-to-work date.
• Doctor’s notes that say “unknown,” “TBD,” or “when treatment is complete” frequently undermine disability discrimination claims.
• Courts focus on what your employer knew at the moment of termination, not what happened later.
• Clear, updated medical documentation can limit employer defenses. Vague documentation expands them.
• Many employees lose viable claims because of paperwork problems, not because discrimination did not occur.

If you were fired while on medical leave in California and are wondering whether what happened to you qualifies as disability discrimination under the FEHA, you should get clear answers before assuming you do or do not have a case. You can contact me at the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 to discuss your situation and get a straightforward evaluation of your potential claim.

Why Return-to-Work Dates Matter When You’re Fired While on Medical Leave in California

When courts analyze whether being fired while on medical leave in California is illegal, they do so under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The FEHA is the primary California law that governs disability discrimination in employment. It applies to most employers in the state and requires them to reasonably accommodate employees with physical or mental disabilities, including by providing medical leave when appropriate.

Under the FEHA, a leave of absence can qualify as a reasonable accommodation for a disability or medical condition. But that obligation is not unlimited. The law does not require employers to hold a job open indefinitely or to wait without any meaningful information about when, or whether, an employee will return to work. Instead, the FEHA asks a narrower question: based on the medical information available at the time, was the employee’s return to work reasonably foreseeable?

That is why the FEHA appears repeatedly in cases involving employees who are fired while on medical leave in California. The statute is not concerned with how sympathetic the employee’s situation may be. It is concerned with whether the medical documentation in place supported a finite, workable accommodation that would allow the employee to return to the job within a reasonable period of time.

If you’re curious why wrongful termination lawsuits under the FEHA often backfire on employers, read my blog Wrongful Termination Lawsuits Under the FEHA: A Costly Gamble for Employers.

How Timing Determines Whether Being Fired While on Medical Leave in California Is Illegal

In FEHA medical leave cases, timing controls the analysis. Courts do not ask whether you eventually returned to work. They ask whether, at the time you were fired, your employer had medical documentation showing that your leave was temporary and finite.

Key points courts focus on:

• Whether your most recent doctor’s note included a specific or reasonably definite return-to-work date
• Whether that return date showed a near-term or foreseeable return, not an open-ended one
• Whether your employer was deciding based on current medical information, not assumptions

If your documentation shows a clear timeline, your leave may qualify as a reasonable accommodation under the FEHA. If it does not, the employer may argue, often successfully, that continued leave was indefinite and therefore not required.

Timing does not mean how long you were out. It means what the paperwork said when the employer made the termination decision.

Why California Courts Care More About Foreseeability Than Sympathy in Disability Discrimination Cases

California courts do not decide disability discrimination claims based on fairness or hardship. They decide them based on foreseeability and documentation.

From a legal standpoint:

• A leave of absence is a reasonable accommodation only if it is likely to enable a return to work
• “Eventually” is not enough
• “When treatment is complete” is not enough
• “Unknown” or “to be determined” signals uncertainty, not foreseeability

Even when an employee’s medical situation is serious and undisputed, courts still ask whether the employer could reasonably predict when the employee would return. Without a foreseeable return-to-work date, the law does not require the employer to wait and hope.

This is why employees who are fired while on medical leave in California are often shocked to learn that their claim fails not because the employer acted kindly or fairly, but because the medical documentation did not support a legally enforceable obligation to continue the leave.

How Employers Use Vague Doctor’s Notes to Defend Termination After Medical Leave

Employers rarely say, “We fired you because you were disabled.” Instead, they rely on the language in your own medical records.

Common employer arguments include:

• The employee was on indefinite medical leave, which is not a reasonable accommodation under FEHA
• There was no return-to-work date in place at the time of termination
• The doctor’s note did not show that additional leave would likely result in the employee returning
• The employer could not assess accommodations because the timeline was unclear

When a doctor’s note lacks a clear return-to-work date, it gives the employer a legal narrative that courts routinely accept. That narrative is not that the employer was impatient or unsympathetic. It is that the employer lacked a legally sufficient basis to keep the job open any longer.

This is how otherwise strong California disability discrimination cases quietly fall apart. Not because the employee did nothing wrong, but because the medical documentation failed to draw a clear line between temporary leave and indefinite absence.

When disability issues overlap with retaliation for complaints or protected activity, the analysis becomes more complex, which I explain in my article, Disability Discrimination and Retaliation in California.

What “Indefinite Leave” Actually Means Under California Law When You’re Fired While on Medical Leave

When employees are fired while on medical leave in California, the word indefinite becomes the hinge point of the case. Many employees hear “indefinite” and assume it means a long recovery or an extended leave. That is not how courts use the term.

Under the FEHA, indefinite leave does not describe the length of time off. It describes the lack of clarity in the medical information the employer has at the time of termination. Courts care about whether the employer can reasonably predict a return to work, not how sympathetic the medical situation may be.

If you’ve just been fired and don’t know what to do next, read my post: I Just Got Fired: What Should I Do Right Away.

Why “Indefinite” Leave Under the FEHA Means Unclear, Not Long

In FEHA medical leave cases, courts draw a sharp line between extended leave and indefinite leave. The difference is not measured in weeks or months. It is measured in certainty.

Key points courts rely on:

• A leave can be long and still be reasonable if it has a clear return-to-work date
• A leave can be short and still be indefinite if there is no identifiable endpoint
• The FEHA does not require employers to approve leave that depends on “we’ll see how it goes”

Employees often lose California disability discrimination claims because they focus on duration instead of clarity. Courts do the opposite. If the employer cannot tell when you are coming back, the leave is treated as indefinite, even if everyone hopes the return will happen soon.

Why “Unknown,” “TBD,” or “When Treatment Is Complete” Triggers Red Flags in Medical Leave Cases

Certain phrases in doctor’s notes consistently weaken claims by employees fired while on medical leave in California. These phrases do not signal flexibility or caution. They signal uncertainty.

Examples courts view negatively:

• “Return date unknown”
• “TBD”
• “When treatment is complete”
• “Until further notice”
• “Reassess at next appointment”

From a medical perspective, these phrases are common. From a legal perspective, they create a problem. They tell the employer there is no foreseeable return-to-work date and no way to evaluate whether continued leave will allow the employee to resume work.

When these phrases appear in the most recent doctor’s note at the time of termination, employers argue, often successfully, that continued leave was indefinite and therefore not a reasonable accommodation under the FEHA.

How California Courts Distinguish Finite Medical Recovery From Open-Ended Absence

Courts deciding California disability discrimination cases do not require certainty. They require foreseeability. A return-to-work date does not need to be guaranteed. It needs to be reasonably definite.

Courts are more likely to find leave reasonable when:

• The doctor provides a specific return date, even if it is months away
• The note states the employee is expected or likely to return by a certain date
• The timeline shows progressive recovery, supported by updates

Courts are more likely to side with employers when:

• The medical notes never commit to a return date
• Each update simply extends leave without explaining when work can resume
• The employee cannot identify any point at which accommodations other than leave would work

This distinction explains why employees who are fired while on medical leave in California often feel blindsided. The case turns not on intent or fairness, but on whether the medical documentation showed a finite recovery path or an open-ended absence at the moment the employer made its decision.

To understand when medical leave becomes legally “indefinite” and why that distinction matters so much under California law, read my blog, Indefinite Medical Leave: Can My Employer Terminate Me?

The Legal Standard Under the FEHA for Medical Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation in California

The FEHA requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities, and in many cases, that accommodation includes a leave of absence. But the law draws firm boundaries around what employers must do.

Medical leave is not automatically reasonable simply because an employee is disabled or recovering. Under the FEHA, the question is whether the leave is likely to accomplish its purpose, which is allowing the employee to return to work and perform the essential functions of the job. That likelihood depends almost entirely on the medical information available at the time the employer makes its decision.

Why Leave Is a Reasonable Accommodation Under the FEHA Only If It Is Likely to Enable a Return to Work

The FEHA allows medical leave as a reasonable accommodation because time away from work can allow recovery. But the law does not treat leave as an end in itself.

Courts applying the FEHA focus on:

• Whether the leave is expected to result in the employee returning to work
• Whether the doctor’s note includes a specific or reasonably definite return-to-work date
• Whether the leave functions as a bridge back to employment, not a holding pattern

If the medical documentation shows that additional leave is likely to allow the employee to resume working, the leave may be reasonable even if it is lengthy. If the documentation does not show that, the accommodation fails the legal test. This is why employees fired while on medical leave in California often lose claims despite having serious medical conditions. The leave was not shown to be effective in legal terms.

Why the FEHA Does Not Require Employers to Wait Forever When Medical Leave Is Open-Ended

The FEHA imposes obligations, not indefinite patience. California courts consistently hold that employers are not required to provide indefinite medical leave as an accommodation.

From a legal standpoint:

• Employers must evaluate accommodations based on foreseeable outcomes
• The FEHA does not require employers to speculate about future recovery
• Open-ended leave forces employers to hold positions without any basis for planning

When an employer terminates an employee who cannot provide a foreseeable return-to-work date, courts often find that the employer acted within the bounds of the FEHA. The decision turns not on how long the employee was out, but on whether the employer had any reliable way to assess when, or if, the employee would return.

This is a critical point for employees fired while on medical leave in California. The law does not punish employers for refusing to wait indefinitely. It evaluates whether the employer had a legally sufficient reason to conclude that continued leave was no longer a reasonable accommodation.

If your approved leave of absence ended with a termination and you’re trying to understand whether that crossed a legal line, read my blog, My Leave of Absence Ended in Termination. Was This Discrimination?

Why Medical Prognosis Matters More Than Absolute Certainty in FEHA Medical Leave Cases

Courts applying the FEHA do not require doctors to guarantee recovery. Absolute certainty is not the standard. Reasonable medical prognosis is.

Medical documentation supports a reasonable accommodation when:

• The provider gives an estimated return-to-work date
• The note states the employee is expected or likely to return by that date
• The prognosis reflects a finite recovery period, even if subject to change

Medical documentation undermines a claim when:

• The provider refuses to estimate any return date
• The note relies entirely on reassessment without timelines
• Each update extends leave without narrowing uncertainty

This distinction explains why careful wording in doctor’s notes is so important. A note does not have to promise success. It has to give the employer enough information to reasonably conclude that the leave will work as an accommodation. Without that, courts are unlikely to find a violation of the FEHA when an employee is fired while on medical leave in California.

If you want to understand your rights when facing discrimination at work, read my article: Workplace Discrimination in California: All Employees Have Equal Rights.

How Unclear Return-to-Work Dates Undermine Disability Discrimination Claims When You’re Fired While on Medical Leave in California

When employees are fired while on medical leave in California, they often believe the dispute will center on the employer’s motive or how the termination was handled. In reality, many disability discrimination claims fail long before motive becomes relevant. They fail because the medical documentation in place at the time of termination leaves too much uncertainty.

Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, employers are required to evaluate whether a leave of absence is a reasonable accommodation. Unclear return-to-work dates make that evaluation easier for employers and harder for employees. When timelines are vague, employers gain a defensible path to termination that courts frequently accept.

In some cases, these terminations also overlap with protected activity under the California Labor Code. For example, when an employee requests medical leave, provides doctor’s notes, or raises concerns about disability accommodations, that conduct may be protected under California Labor Code section 1102.5.

While section 1102.5 is most commonly associated with whistleblower claims, it also reinforces that employers cannot lawfully terminate employees in retaliation for asserting workplace rights. When a termination closely follows medical leave communications, courts often examine both the FEHA accommodation analysis and whether retaliation concerns are present.

How Employers Argue That Unclear Medical Notes Made Your Leave “Indefinite” Under the FEHA

Employers defending disability discrimination claims rarely attack the employee’s diagnosis. Instead, they attack the lack of clarity in the return-to-work timeline.

Common employer arguments include:

• The employee’s most recent doctor’s note did not include a specific or reasonably definite return-to-work date
• The leave depended on reassessment rather than a foreseeable recovery period
• Continued leave was indefinite, not temporary, under the FEHA
• Without a timeline, the employer could not evaluate other accommodations or staffing needs

These arguments do not require bad faith or hostility. They rely entirely on the wording of the medical documentation. When an employer can point to notes that say “unknown,” “TBD,” or “until further notice,” courts often conclude that the employer was not legally required to keep the job open any longer.

This is how employees who are fired while on medical leave in California lose claims even when the employer’s conduct feels harsh or abrupt.

Why Judges Often Side With Employers When Return-to-Work Timelines Are Vague

Judges deciding FEHA medical leave cases focus on what the employer knew when the decision was made, not what later happened.

Courts routinely side with employers when:

• The medical notes in effect at termination lack a clear return date
• The employee cannot show that additional leave was likely to result in a return to work
• The employer faced an open-ended absence with no reliable endpoint

From the court’s perspective, vague timelines force employers to guess. The FEHA does not require employers to guess. It requires them to evaluate accommodations based on reasonably foreseeable outcomes. When the outcome is unclear, courts often find that the employer acted within the law by ending the employment relationship.

This is a difficult reality for employees to accept, but it explains why disability discrimination claims under the FEHA rise or fall on documentation, not sympathy.

How Poor Medical Documentation Shifts the Legal Burden Against the Employee

In California disability discrimination cases, unclear documentation quietly shifts leverage away from the employee.

When return-to-work dates are vague:

• Employers can credibly claim they lacked sufficient information to continue accommodation
• Employees lose the ability to show that leave was a finite, workable solution
• Courts become less receptive to arguments about unfairness or poor communication

Clear documentation does not guarantee a winning case. Poor documentation, however, often guarantees a losing one. When the medical record fails to show a foreseeable return to work, employees fired while on medical leave in California face an uphill battle proving that termination violated the FEHA.

This is why doctor’s notes are not just medical paperwork. In disability discrimination cases, they function as legal evidence. When that evidence is unclear, the law tends to favor the employer.

If you were fired while on medical leave in California and are wondering whether what happened to you qualifies as disability discrimination under the FEHA, you should get clear answers before assuming you do or do not have a case. You can contact me at the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 to discuss your situation and get a straightforward evaluation of your potential claim.

Doctor’s Notes: What Employees Get Wrong When Fired While on Medical Leave in California

When employees are fired while on medical leave in California, they often assume a doctor’s note automatically protects them. It does not. Under the FEHA, the content of the note matters more than the fact that one exists.

Doctor’s notes function as legal evidence in disability discrimination cases. When they are vague or generic, they give employers a clear path to argue that continued leave was not a reasonable accommodation.

Why Generic Doctor’s Notes Are Dangerous in FEHA Disability Discrimination Claims

Generic notes often fail because they provide too little usable information.

Common problems include:

• No return-to-work date or estimated timeframe
• Statements that only confirm disability, not recovery expectations
• Notes that simply say “off work” without explanation
• Repeated extensions that add time but not clarity

From a legal standpoint, these notes prevent employers from evaluating whether leave will actually allow a return to work. Courts do not treat that failure as the employer’s fault.

Common Doctor’s Note Phrases That Quietly Hurt Your Case

Certain phrases appear harmless but regularly undermine claims by employees fired while on medical leave in California.

Red-flag language includes:

• “Return date unknown”
• “TBD”
• “Until further notice”
• “When treatment is complete”
• “Reassess at next appointment”

These phrases signal open-ended absence. Under the FEHA, that is often enough for an employer to argue that leave was indefinite and no longer required.

Why Medical Uncertainty Is Different From Legal Uncertainty Under the FEHA

Doctors are trained to avoid guarantees. Courts do not require guarantees. They require foreseeability.

Legally sufficient notes usually include:

• An estimated return-to-work date
• Language such as “expected” or “likely”
• A defined recovery window, even if subject to change

Notes that avoid any estimate create legal uncertainty, not medical caution. When that happens, employees fired while on medical leave in California often lose disability discrimination claims because the documentation fails to support a workable accommodation.

What a Strong Return-to-Work Note Should Communicate When You’re Fired While on Medical Leave in California

When employees are fired while on medical leave in California, strong medical documentation does not guarantee a winning case. Weak documentation, however, almost guarantees a losing one. Under the FEHA, the goal of a return-to-work note is not to prove certainty. It is to show that additional leave is a finite, workable accommodation.

A legally useful doctor’s note gives the employer enough information to evaluate whether the leave is likely to succeed.

Why Estimated Return-to-Work Windows Matter More Than Open-Ended Language

Courts applying the FEHA focus on whether the return to work is reasonably foreseeable.

Strong notes typically include:

• A specific return-to-work date or date range
• An estimate measured in weeks or months, not uncertainty
• Language showing the leave has an endpoint, even if flexible

Problematic notes often rely on:

• “Unknown” or “TBD” timelines
• Reassessment without timeframes
• Extensions that add time without narrowing uncertainty

A long estimated return window is legally safer than an open-ended one.

How to Explain Treatment Plans Without Oversharing or Undermining Your Case

Employees often believe more medical detail helps. It usually does not.

Effective notes focus on:

• Functional impact, not diagnoses
• Recovery trajectory, not every procedure
• Work limitations and anticipated improvement

Oversharing can hurt when it:

• Highlights uncertainty without timelines
• Emphasizes complications without progress
• Suggests recovery depends on unpredictable factors

Courts care about whether work is likely to resume, not the details of treatment.

Why “Likely to Return” Carries More Legal Weight Than “Guaranteed to Return”

The FEHA does not require certainty. It requires reasonable medical judgment.

Helpful phrasing includes:

• “Expected to return by”
• “Likely able to resume work on or about”
• “Anticipated return date”

Harmful assumptions include:

• Thinking a guarantee is required
• Avoiding estimates to stay cautious
• Leaving the employer to guess

Courts understand that medicine involves uncertainty. What they do not accept is silence about when recovery is expected.

The Interactive Process and Unclear Medical Timelines When You’re Fired While on Medical Leave in California

When medical timelines are unclear, the analysis does not stop with the doctor’s note. Under the FEHA, employers and employees share responsibility for engaging in a good-faith interactive process to explore reasonable accommodations. Unclear return-to-work dates often strain that process and expose where responsibility breaks down.

Why Employers Cannot Simply Assume Your Medical Leave Is Indefinite Under the FEHA

The FEHA does not allow employers to jump to conclusions.

Key principles courts apply:

• Employers must base decisions on actual medical information, not assumptions
• Vague notes do not automatically excuse the employer from further inquiry
• An employer cannot label leave “indefinite” without first engaging the process

When employers skip the interactive process and rely solely on ambiguity, they risk liability. The obligation is to evaluate, not speculate.

When Employers Have a Duty to Seek Clarification About Return-to-Work Dates

Unclear medical notes often trigger a follow-up obligation.

Courts expect employers to:

• Ask for clarification or updated information when timelines are vague
• Explain what information is needed to evaluate accommodations
• Give employees a reasonable opportunity to provide updated notes

This duty is not endless. But when employers terminate without seeking clarification, courts may find a failure to engage in the interactive process, even if the employee’s documentation was imperfect.

How Communication Breakdowns Turn Medical Leave Issues Into FEHA Liability

Interactive process claims often arise from silence, not confrontation.

Common breakdowns include:

• Employers stop communicating once leave extends
• Employees assume extensions speak for themselves
• Neither side clarifies expectations or next steps

When communication collapses, courts look closely at who caused it. Employers who disengage too early risk liability. Employees who fail to respond or update risk losing protection. Clear, documented communication keeps uncertainty from turning into a legal dead end for employees fired while on medical leave in California.

If you’re wondering whether your employer actually complied with its legal obligations before terminating you, I explain how courts analyze that question in my blog, Did My Employer Follow the FEHA Interactive Process?

Employer “Undue Hardship” Arguments and Why Return-to-Work Dates Matter When You’re Fired While on Medical Leave in California

When employees are fired while on medical leave in California, employers often defend the decision by claiming that continued leave created an undue hardship. Under the FEHA, undue hardship is a recognized defense, but it is not a free pass. Employers must do more than express frustration or inconvenience.

Return-to-work dates matter because they shape whether an employer can plausibly claim that holding a job open became unreasonable. Clear timelines limit that defense. Vague timelines strengthen it.

Why “We Need to Run the Business” Is Not Enough Under the FEHA

Employers frequently justify termination by pointing to operational needs. Standing alone, that explanation carries little legal weight.

Under the FEHA:

• Employers must show more than general business disruption
• Staffing challenges alone do not establish undue hardship
• The law does not excuse termination simply because leave is inconvenient

Courts expect employers to support hardship claims with facts, not slogans. When an employee provides a clear, foreseeable return-to-work date, generic business justifications rarely succeed.

How Employers Must Prove Actual Undue Hardship, Not Mere Inconvenience

Undue hardship requires evidence. Courts analyze hardship based on the employer’s specific circumstances.

Factors courts consider include:

• The length and predictability of the leave
• The size and resources of the employer
• Whether temporary solutions were feasible
• Whether the position could be covered without permanent disruption

When medical documentation shows a finite return window, employers face a higher burden. When documentation is open-ended, that burden becomes easier to meet.

Why Vague Medical Timelines Make Undue Hardship Easier for Employers to Claim

Unclear return-to-work dates give employers room to argue that the hardship was unavoidable.

Vague timelines allow employers to say:

• There was no way to plan staffing or operations
• The absence had no foreseeable endpoint
• Continued leave required indefinite job protection

Courts often accept these arguments when medical documentation lacks clarity. That is why employees fired while on medical leave in California lose otherwise viable disability discrimination claims. Not because hardship was inevitable, but because unclear timelines made the defense easier to assert.

How Employees Can Protect Their Disability Discrimination Claims When Fired While on Medical Leave in California

Employees often do not lose disability discrimination claims because the law is stacked against them. They lose because they do not realize they are creating a legal record while they are still on leave. Under the FEHA, what you document, when you document it, and how clearly you communicate all matter.

Protecting a claim starts before termination happens.

How to Work With Doctors to Create Legally Useful Medical Documentation

Doctors focus on treatment. Courts focus on timelines. Employees need documentation that bridges the two.

Practical steps include:

• Asking your provider to include an estimated return-to-work date, even if subject to change
• Requesting language such as “expected” or “likely” rather than open-ended phrasing
• Making sure each updated note narrows uncertainty, not just extends leave
• Confirming that work restrictions and recovery progress are clearly stated

You are not asking your doctor to guarantee recovery. You are asking for a professional estimate that courts can rely on.

How Often to Update Your Employer and Why It Matters Under the FEHA

Silence creates risk. Regular updates protect you.

Best practices include:

• Providing updated medical notes before prior notes expire
• Responding promptly to employer requests for information
• Confirming receipt of documentation in writing
• Keeping a clear timeline of when updates were sent

Courts evaluating claims by employees fired while on medical leave in California often look at whether the employee stayed engaged. Timely updates show good-faith participation in the interactive process.

What to Put in Writing and What Not to Say During Medical Leave

What you write can help or hurt your claim.

Helpful written communication includes:

• Clear statements that you intend to return to work
• References to your anticipated return date
• Willingness to discuss accommodations if needed

Risky statements to avoid include:

• Saying you “do not know” when you will return
• Suggesting you may never be able to work again
• Expressing frustration in ways that imply open-ended absence

Every email or form may later be read by a judge. Clear, forward-looking communication keeps the focus on return, not uncertainty.

Frequently Asked Questions About Being Fired While on Medical Leave in California

Can I be fired while on medical leave in California without it being disability discrimination?

Yes. Being fired while on medical leave in California does not automatically violate the law. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the FEHA), medical leave is a reasonable accommodation only if it is likely to allow you to return to work. If your doctor’s notes did not show a reasonably foreseeable return-to-work date at the time of termination, your employer may not have been legally required to keep your job open.

What makes medical leave “indefinite” under California disability discrimination law?

Indefinite medical leave under California law does not mean long leave. It means unclear leave. When doctor’s notes use phrases like “unknown,” “TBD,” or “when treatment is complete,” courts often treat the leave as indefinite. Under the FEHA, employers are not required to provide indefinite medical leave as a reasonable accommodation.

Do doctor’s notes really matter if I was terminated while on medical leave?

Yes. In California disability discrimination cases, doctor’s notes often matter more than the diagnosis itself. Courts focus on whether the medical documentation in place at the time of termination showed a clear or reasonably definite return-to-work date. Vague or outdated notes make it easier for employers to defend a termination after medical leave.

What kind of return-to-work language helps protect a disability discrimination claim?

Helpful doctor’s notes usually include an estimated return-to-work date, even if it is subject to change. Language such as “expected to return by” or “likely able to resume work on or about” is far stronger than open-ended phrasing. The FEHA does not require certainty, but it does require reasonable foreseeability.

If my CFRA or FMLA leave ran out, can I still have a FEHA disability claim?

Possibly. CFRA and FMLA provide job-protected leave for a fixed period, but the FEHA is separate and broader. Even after statutory leave ends, employers may still have obligations under the FEHA to consider additional medical leave or other accommodations. Whether that applies depends heavily on whether your medical documentation showed a foreseeable return to work at the time you were fired.

For a real-world example of how courts evaluate denied medical leave requests, including what employees can learn from losing cases, see my post, Denied Medical Leave: What Employees Can Learn from Head v. Costco.

Final Thoughts

Disability discrimination cases involving medical leave are rarely decided by how serious an employee’s condition was or how unfair the termination felt. They are decided by what the employer knew at the moment of termination and whether the medical documentation in place showed a reasonably foreseeable return to work. Under the FEHA, that distinction matters more than most employees realize until it is too late.

If you were fired while on medical leave in California, the difference between a viable claim and a dead end often comes down to clarity, timing, and documentation. Doctor’s notes are not just medical records. In these cases, they are legal evidence. Understanding that reality early can make all the difference.

Contact the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 to Evaluate Your Potential Lawsuit

Matt Ruggles has a thorough understanding of California employment laws and decades of practical experience litigating employment law claims in California state and federal courts. Using all of his knowledge and experience, Matt and his team can quickly evaluate your potential claim and give you realistic advice on what you can expect if you sue your former employer.

Contact the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 for a free, no-obligation evaluation.

Blog posts are not legal advice and are for information purposes only. Contact the Ruggles Law Firm for consideration of your individual circumstances.