CA · jury_instructions
CACI No. 2612
Affirmative Defense—Employment Would Have Ceased
[Name of defendant] claims that [he/she/ nonbinary pronoun/it] was not
required to allow [name of plaintiff] to return to work when
[his/her/nonbinary pronoun] [family care/medical] leave was over because
[his/her/nonbinary pronoun] employment would have ended for other
reasons. To succeed, [name of defendant] must prove both of the
following:
1. That [name of defendant] would have [discharged/laid off] [name of
plaintiff] if [he/she/ nonbinary pronoun] had continued to work
during the leave period; and
2. That [name of plaintiff]’s [family care/medical] leave was not a
reason for [discharging [him/her/ nonbinary pronoun]/laying [him/
her/nonbinary pronoun] off].
An employee on [family care/medical] leave has no greater right to the
employee’s job or to other employment benefits than if that employee
had continued working during the leave.
New September 2003; Revised May 2020
Provenance
- Source
- courts.ca.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- caci-2025
- Content hash
1f7ab695a93106b10858c7f6c7edb20f1fe0d26fafc369e60f3d370feae211a2
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.