Under California law, a “disability” is broadly construed. In the employment law context, an individual qualifies as having a “disability” under California law if the individual: 1. Has a physical disability, mental disability, special education disability, or medical condition that limits one of the major life activities of the individual; and 2. Has a record or […]
Read more...Disability Discrimination
California Law Protects Employees with Potential or Perceived Disabilities
While California law protects employees who are disabled, it also protects workers whose employers perceive them to have a physical or mental impairment that is disabling, potentially disabling, or perceived as disabling or potentially disabling. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12926.1(b). In other words, California law protects workers from adverse employment actions because their employer […]
Read more...California Law Protects Workers Who Are Associated With a Disabled Person
California law prohibits an employer from taking an adverse action against an employee based on the employee’s association with a disabled person. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12926(o). This is referred to as an “associational disability” claim. To prove an associational disability claim, an employee must prove that: (1) the “disability” from which they suffer […]
Read more...What is a Reasonable Accommodation under California Law?
Under California law an employer must make reasonable accommodations for the known disability of an employee or applicant. Cal. Gov’t Code §12940(m); Dep’t of Fair Emp. & Hous. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 642 F.3d 728, 743 (9th Cir. 2011). A reasonable accommodation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) is “a modification or adjustment […]
Read more...Employers Can Deny Disability Accommodations if They Can Prove Undue Hardship
In California, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations for applicants or employees with physical or mental disabilities.[1] However, an employer does not have to provide accommodations if those accommodations create an “undue hardship” for the employer.[2] California law defines undue hardship as an “action requiring significant difficulty or expense.”[3] When deciding whether a potential accommodation […]
Read more...Disability Harassment is Illegal under California Law
Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), it is an unlawful for an employer or any other person to harass an employee due to their physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition.[1] Unlike claims for discrimination, liability for harassment applies to “any person” and thus extends to individuals, including individual supervisory employees.[2] In order for […]
Read more...Your Rights at Work under California Disability Law
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“the FEHA”) and
related regulations promulgated by the Fair Employment and Housing Council provide important protections to employees and applicants with disabilities.[1] These protections extend to persons who are disabled or considered to be disabled, as well as to those who are associated with people who are disabled.[2] Continue reading “Your Rights at Work under California Disability Law”
The EEOC’s Guidelines on an Employer’s Duty to Provide Reasonable Accommodation
Under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), individuals with disabilities are entitled to changes in the work environment, also known as “reasonable accommodations,” that allow them to enjoy the same opportunities in the workplace as individuals without disabilities. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has issued enforcement guidance on reasonable accommodations under […]
Read more...Disabled Prison Guard Wins his Third Appeal Against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Courts can award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing plaintiff in a discrimination or harassment claim brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). These attorney fee awards are designed to incentivize and reward a plaintiff’s counsel for litigating a civil rights case that is generally taken on a contingency fee basis and therefore has inherent risks. Trial courts first calculate the lodestar amount, which is the product of the hours spent and the prevailing hourly rate of attorneys in the community conducting similar non-contingent litigation. Then courts can increase this amount by adding a multiplier or increasing the lodestar amount by looking at various factors, such as the risk of non-payment, the public interest in advancing civil rights cases, the complexity of the issues involved, and the skill of the attorneys. Continue reading “Disabled Prison Guard Wins his Third Appeal Against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation”
Court of Appeal Rules in Favor of Gay CHP Veteran Suing for Sexual Orientation Discrimination
An openly gay California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer, Jay Brome, brought suit against his employer after enduring twenty years of harassment and discrimination. The trial court dismissed his claims on the grounds that they were not filed within the statute of limitations. The California Court of Appeal for the First District reversed the trial court’s ruling in a unanimous opinion, holding that equitable tolling could extend Mr. Brome’s statute of limitations. (Brome v. California Highway Patrol, A154612, filed January 28, 2020.) Continue reading “Court of Appeal Rules in Favor of Gay CHP Veteran Suing for Sexual Orientation Discrimination”