Vaca

Vaca v. Raypak CA2/6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 18, 2022B313912California2,038 words

Opinion

Opinion

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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.