Restaurant Controversy: Injured Sous Chef Claims Unlawful Firing Over Medical Leave

Getting hurt at work shouldn’t mean losing your job. Some California workers, however, find themselves pushed out after asking for time off or reasonable accommodations to help them continue working. In many cases, that kind of response isn’t just unfair. It may be against state law.

A lawsuit filed in San Francisco County Superior Court accuses LM San Francisco LLC of doing just that. The company, which operates in the hospitality industry, is being sued by a former sous chef who says he was denied medical leave, refused reasonable accommodations and ultimately wrongfully terminated after suffering a workplace injury. The complaint says this violated California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), both of which protect workers in situations like his.

According to the lawsuit, the employee started working for LM San Francisco LLC in September 2022. In January 2024, he burned himself while on the job and asked for time off to recover. He provided medical documentation, but the request for medical leave was reportedly brushed aside. A supervisor allegedly told him it wasn’t a good time to take leave because of the Chinese New Year and Valentine’s Day — busy weeks for restaurants and hotels.

He returned to work on February 15, still recovering and under restrictions from his doctor. The idea was to ease back in while continuing to heal. Instead of offering lighter duties or other solutions, the employer allegedly refused to accommodate the restrictions. The complaint says the company failed to engage in the interactive process, as required to under state law. Instead, he was fired.

In California, that kind of response from an employer can be a serious legal issue. FEHA says employers must communicate with employees who have disabilities to find reasonable accommodations. That doesn’t mean a business has to make drastic changes or take on unreasonable costs, but it does mean they have to try. Known as an interactive process, this discussion is meant to help both sides figure out what adjustments can be made to keep someone working safely.

Reasonable accommodations can include things like modified duties, a different shift, extra breaks, special equipment or temporary reassignment. The key is that employers are supposed to make an honest effort. Ignoring medical restrictions or shutting down the conversation entirely can put them on the wrong side of the law.

The lawsuit also claims violations of CFRA, which gives eligible workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for a serious health condition. That leave is separate from paid time off or sick leave and can’t be used as a reason to fire or discipline an employee. To qualify, a worker needs to have been employed for at least a year and worked 1,250 hours during the past 12 months. If those boxes are checked, the employer is expected to honor the request for medical leave and make sure the worker still has a job when they return.

The lawsuit argues that not only did the company deny leave and fail to offer accommodations, but it also retaliated against the worker for trying to exercise his rights. He is now seeking damages for lost pay and emotional distress, along with reinstatement to his former position or a similar role.

The case is still pending, and it’s up to the court to decide what happened. However, the claims laid out in the complaint reflect a reality many workers face. When they try to take care of their health, they are sometimes met with resistance instead of support.

If you have been denied medical leave or fired after asking for reasonable accommodations, you may have grounds to take legal action against your employer. While McCormack Law Firm is not involved with this lawsuit, our San Francisco employment lawyers are dedicated to representing workers in employment disputes. Contact us today for a free initial consultation to learn more about how we can help.

Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only. McCormack Law Firm is not involved in this case.