Workplace Rights

Disabled Employees: Do you Know Your Workplace Rights?

By Jonathan Delshad, Law Offices of Jonathan J. Delshad, PC, JD/MBA

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) in California is a law that protects employees from discrimination based on their disability. Under FEHA, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities and engage in an interactive process to determine what accommodations are necessary.

In this article, we will discuss what reasonable accommodation is, what an interactive process is, and the seminal cases that have shaped these concepts. Lastly, we will describe a concept called "associational disability" where someone who is not disabled is given accommodations based on their association with someone who is disabled.

But first, it is important to know that under California Law, someone is considered "disabled" and subject to these laws if they have any condition that makes the accomplishment of a major life activity difficult. 

What is a Reasonable Accommodation?

A reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment to the workplace that enables an employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of their job. The accommodation must be effective and not impose an undue hardship on the employer. Examples of reasonable accommodations may include providing an interpreter for a deaf employee, modifying work hours or duties or providing specialized equipment.

The employer has a duty to provide a reasonable accommodation once they become aware of an employee's disability and the need for an accommodation. The employer can ask for documentation of the employee's disability and limitations to determine what accommodation is necessary.

Seminal California Cases Defining Reasonable Accommodations

The California Courts have decided several seminal cases that have shaped the concept of reasonable accommodation. These cases have established guidelines for what is considered a reasonable accommodation and what an employer's obligations are.

Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2008)

accommodations to employees with disabilities unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship. The court also clarified that an undue hardship is a significant difficulty or expense that would fundamentally alter the nature of the business.

Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000)

In this case, the California Court of Appeals held that an employer's failure to engage in an interactive process to determine what reasonable accommodations are necessary can constitute disability discrimination. The court emphasized the importance of the interactive process and stated that the employer must make a good faith effort to identify the employee's limitations and potential accommodations.

Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. (2013)

In this case, the California Court of Appeals held that an employer's failure to provide an effective reasonable accommodation can constitute disability discrimination, even if the employer provided some accommodation. The court emphasized that the employer must provide an accommodation that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of their job.

What is required to have a true Interactive Process under California Employment Law?

An interactive process is a dialogue between the employer and the employee with a disability to determine what reasonable accommodations are necessary. The interactive process is a critical component of FEHA and requires both the employer and the employee to communicate in good faith to identify the employee's limitations and potential accommodations.

The employer must initiate the interactive process once they become aware of the employee's disability and the need for an accommodation. The employee has an obligation to participate in the interactive process and provide information about their disability and limitations. The interactive process should continue until a reasonable accommodation is identified or it is determined that no reasonable accommodation is available.

Seminal Cases Regarding the Interactive Process in California Disability Discrimination Law

Alch v. Superior Court (2004)

In this case, the California Court of Appeal held that the interactive process is a mandatory and ongoing obligation on the part of the employer. The court emphasized that both the employer and employee have a duty to participate in good faith in the interactive process.

Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009)

In this case, the California Court of Appeal held that the interactive process requires the employer to make a good faith effort to communicate with the employee to identify potential accommodations. The court also held that the interactive process may require the employer to explore potential accommodations that go beyond what the employee initially requested.

Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association (2011)

In this case, the California Supreme Court held that an employer's failure to engage in the interactive process can be the basis for liability under the FEHA. The court also clarified that the interactive process is a collaborative effort between the employer and employee, and both parties have an obligation to communicate and engage in good faith.

Nakai v. Friendship House Association of American Indians, Inc. (2012)

In this case, the California Court of Appeal held that the interactive process requires the employer to provide the employee with a clear explanation of the reasons for any denials or rejections of requested accommodations. The court emphasized that the interactive process is a two-way communication process that requires both parties to be actively engaged.

Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (2013)

In this case, the California Court of Appeal held that the interactive process requires the employer to engage in an interactive dialogue with the employee to determine what accommodations are necessary. The court emphasized that the employer must be flexible and creative in exploring potential accommodations and should not limit their options to accommodations that have been used in the past.

Associational Disability under California Employment Law.

FEHA also protects employees from discrimination based on their association with a person with a disability. This is known as associational disability discrimination. Under FEHA, an employee cannot be discriminated against for their association with a person with a disability, such as a spouse, child or parent.

In the context of reasonable accommodations, an employer may be required to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee who needs time off work to care for a family member with a disability. For example, an employee may need time off work to attend medical appointments for their child with a disability, and the employer may be required to provide a reasonable accommodation such as a modified work schedule.

The interactive process also applies to associational disability cases. Employers must engage in an interactive process with employees who need a reasonable accommodation due to their association with a person with a disability. The employer must determine what reasonable accommodation is necessary to allow the employee to perform their job duties without discrimination based on their association with a person with a disability.

Seminal Cases Regarding Associational Disability in California Employment Law.

Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997)

In this case, the California Supreme Court held that an employee could bring a claim for associational disability discrimination under FEHA. The court also clarified that an employee could bring a claim for failure to accommodate based on their association with a person with a disability.

Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 8 (2012)

In this case, the California Supreme Court held that an employee could bring a claim for associational disability discrimination even if the disability did not affect the employee directly. The court stated that associational discrimination could occur if an employer discriminates against an employee based on their association with a person with a disability, even if the employee does not have a disability themselves.

FEHA in California provides strong protections for employees with disabilities and their associates. Employers must provide reasonable accommodations and engage in an interactive process to determine what accommodations are necessary, even if the accommodation is related to an employee's association with a person with a disability. The seminal cases discussed in this article have established guidelines for what is considered associational disability discrimination, what an employer's obligations are, and the importance of the interactive process. Employees with disabilities should be familiar with these concepts and ensure that their employers are complying with FEHA's requirements.

About the Author:

This article was written by attorney Jonathan J. Delshad of The Law Offices of Jonathan J. Delshad, PC   to provide a basic understanding of workplace rights for employees with disabilities. It is not intended to be legal advice and no attorney client relationship has been formed. Please consult with a legal professional if you are looking for legal advice about your specific situation.

Sources

Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2008)
Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997)
Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 8 (2012)
Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000)
Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2008)
Green v. State of California (2007)
Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006)
Rope v. Auto-Clor System of Washington, Inc. (2013)
Alch v. Superior Court (2004)
Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009)
Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association (2011)
Nakai v. Friendship House Association of American Indians, Inc. (2012)
Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (2013)

Pre-Register for Abilities Expo Today...It's Free!