Total Articles: 8
Ninth Circuit Rejects Employee’s Disability Accommodation Claim.
California disability law imposes stringent requirements on employers when it comes to accommodation. Employees and their lawyers will criticize an employer’s participation in the “interactive process” and second-guess decisions regarding what is or is not a “reasonable accommodation.” But a diligent employer can safely navigate the rigors of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. In a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case titled DFEH v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., the court reviewed one employer’s actions and found no fault.
Accommodation Discussions Need Clear Guidelines
Recent case tests limits of
the obligation of employers to
meet mandate of disability laws.
Court Flushes Sewage Facility Employees Accommodation Claim
The ADA and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act require employers to engage in an interactive process with disabled employees in order to determine whether a reasonable accommodation may be offered. What happens if the employee does not initiate the process? Does the employer still have an obligation to offer an accommodation? A recent California appellate court addressed this question in a case titled Milan v. City of Holtville.
Grocer Liable After Uninformed Supervisor Fails To Provide Accommodation To Disabled Employee.
When an employer grants a reasonable accommodation to a disabled employee, what happens if an uninformed supervisor later fails to provide that accommodation? In a recent California case titled A.M. v. Albertsons LLC, that very thing happened, and the employer was held liable for failing to provide an accommodation. The case offers important lessons for employers who offer accommodations to disabled employees.
Employers Must Engage In The Interactive Process For Disabled Employees, Regardless Of Whether Reasonable Accommodations Are Later Found To Exist.
In Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) delivered a blow to management in its defense against Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claims brought by disabled employees. The court found that the interactive process and providing reasonable accommodations are separate requirements in disability discrimination claims, and thus constitute separate causes of action with separate burdens of proof.
California Supreme Court Considers Employers Obligation to Accommodate Employees Medical Marijuana Use.
On November 6, 2007, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in the highly controversial case of Ross v. RagingWire. At issue in Ross is whether an employer must retain an employee who uses marijuana for medical reasons and, because of that use, fails a properly administered drug test.
Disabled Employees Claims Cannot Survive Summary Judgment Absent Specific Evidence of Pretext or Denial of Requests for Accommodation (scroll down).
In King v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment against a plaintiff who alleged that he was terminated because of his blood disorder, and that he was denied accommodations, but had no specific evidence of pretext, and failed to identify any specific requests for accommodation he had made.
FEHA Imposes A Broader Duty On Employers to Accommodate Disabled Employees Than Does The ADA.
A California Court of Appeal reinstated a disabled employee's lawsuit which had been dismissed under the more employer friendly provisions of the ADA. The court ruled that California's disability law is more favorable to employees, and must be used in state job bias cases.
