San Francisco Employment Law Firm Blog

Requesting a reasonable accommodation to your disability is an important step to protecting your rights at workplace. Whether your disability or medical condition has developed over time (such as carpal tunnel syndrome) or resulted from an industrial accident, it's important to keep several important things in mind to avoid the common mistake that other employees make when requesting an accommodation:

* The law does not expect the employer to read your mind and assume that you need an accommodation to your condition just because they might have learned that you are sick or have certain pain symptoms. Therefore, you should explicitly ask your employer for a "reasonable accommodation." This is not the time to worry about your medical privacy and confidentiality. You should discuss your pain and the possible solutions that you and your management can work out together to ensure that you are able to continue working at your position or at some other position which is vacant and for which you are qualified.

* Make sure that you request an accommodation in writing. Send a fax or an e-mail to both your human resources department and your management to make sure that later the employer cannot say that you didn't request to be accommodated.

* Be nice! Whether you like your managers or not, they are humans. The respond differently to a different attitude from their subordinates. Being nice and respectful will go along way. Threats or demands don't work. "Accommodate me or I will sue" kind of posture will rarely motivate the employer to go an extra step to help you. Asking rather than demanding and giving an employer reasonable time to find solutions to your medical condition, while understanding that employers have their own challenges that they have to deal with when accommodating an employee, is usually a wise approach.

One of the hallmarks and great advantages of California disability laws, which encompasses employers' obligation to engage in interactive process to find reasonable accommodations to qualifying employees with a disability or a medical condition, is its flexibility. Generally, the employer must consider various solutions to accommodating an employee and be reasonable creative and considering different types of things that the company can do to help the disabled worker remain in the workforce.

One of such accommodations, which can be particularly relevant in cases where an employee has a psychological/mental disability is working from home. In Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association, the Ninth Circuit specifically noted that allowing an employee who suffered from OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) to work from home can be one type of reasonable accommodation that should be considered if it may be effective and if performing that employee's job duties from home would not impose undue hardship on the employer. In that case, the other fact that was helpful to plaintiff is demonstrating that some of her co-workers worked from home, while she was denied that accommodation, and that company had a policy of allowing employee to work from home.

Even though the employer argued that there was no guarantee that working from home would be an effective accommodation to claimant, the court was not persuaded, as one doctor's testimony that working from home could have been effective was sufficient to trigger liability against the employer for failure to provide such an accommodation.

Having been regularly representing nurses, nursing assistants and medical assistants who work for major hospital in California, including such groups as Kaiser and Sutter Health, I see the same patter of work related injuries over and over. A nurse or an assistant is lifting a patient or moving a heavy object, causing an injury to his/her wrist or back, which often requires time of work, prolonged treatment and even a surgery. Some of those wrist/arm and back problems never go away and force the nurses to switch their jobs altogether.

As simple and as obvious as it might sound, strengthening the major groups of muscles in your back and arms/wrists by regularly working out, and just as importantly - having a brief stretching and warm up routine for the muscles and joints you use the most at work can take you a long way toward preventing those injuries. If, for instance, tennis players take their warm-up of their arms, legs and back so seriously in order to prevent injuries associated with sudden weight or impact, so should nurses and their staff do. While strengthening muscles and 5 - 10 minute warm-up before the shift will not guarantee an injury-free career, these simple steps will likely significantly reduce the frequency and gravity of the symptoms associated with pushing, pulling and lifting heavy objects.

Preventing or minimizing a risk of injury might require a degree of diligence and discipline from you, but it is surely a better option than dealing with the pain resulting from those injuries, and disability issues at workplace that may arise as a result.

ForensicNursing.org

It is not uncommon for a California employer to justify its termination of the disabled worker and it's failure to engage in interactive process to find reasonable accommodations as require by law under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, by arguing that because the didn't owe the duty to engage in interactive process because the terminated employee never requested it.

The California courts, however, routinely disagree with that argument by employers. Thus, the second district rejected such an argument by an employer, United Air Lines, where the company suggested that a disabled employee must first come forward and request a specific accommodation before the employer has a duty to investigate such an accommodation. The court reminded the employer that the law does not require the worker to speak any magic words before the disabled employee is subject to its protections. Of course, as the court continued to explain, the employee can't expect the employer to read his mind and know he secretly wanted a particular accommodation and sue the employer for not providing it. The employer is also normally not liable for failing to accommodate a disability of which he had no knowledge. Finally, an employer has no duty to accommodate an employee who denies having a disability or denies a need for accommodation. Prillman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997).

However, the employer is likely to have the duty to engage in interactive process with a worker who the employer knows is disabled or who the employer perceives to be disabled.
The Prillman court found the Washington Supreme Court's interpretation of the California disability statute to be useful. The Washington court held that the duty of an employer to reasonable accommodate an employee's disability does not arise until the employer is "aware of the employee's disability and physical limitations." The employee bears a burden of giving the employer notice of the disability.

This notice then triggers the employer's burden to take "positive steps" to accommodate the employee's limitations. The employee, of course, retains a duty to cooperate with the employer's efforts by explaining his disability and qualifications. Reasonable accommodation thus envisions an exchange between employer and employee where each seeks and shares information to achieve the best match between the employee's capabilities and available positions. Goodman v. Boeing Co. (1995) (WA).

The California Labor Code section 132(a) is yet another device prohibition discrimination against injured workers (in addition to California Fair Employment and Housing Act or "FEHA"). This section prohibits employer discrimination against an employee based on:
* Applying or intending to apply for workers' compensation benefits; or
* Receiving a rating, award or settlement; or
* Testifying or intending to testify in another employee's case.

By enacting this section, the California legislature expressly intended to declare its general policy in favor of preventing all discrimination against injured employees resulting from workers' compensation injury.

Discrimination as used in this section means treating injured employees differently, making them suffer disadvantages that do not apply to other employees because the employee was injured or had made a claim.

It is important to note that employers are not bound to reinstate or retain an injured worker where "business realities" dictate otherwise, that is, where these workers are not long competent to perform their jobs, or their positions are no longer available. In other words, an employer is not guilty of retaliatory discrimination when the employee cannot perform the customary work without risk of either being re-injured or suffering further injury. But employers may not discriminate in any manner against employees who remain competent in their former positions are still available to work.

As stated earlier, section 132(a) is not an exclusive remedy to address discrimination of an injured workers, as an injured employee may also file a civil action in court for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate disability, wrongful termination in violation of public policy and possibly other claims if apply.

Both ADA (Americans with Disabilities act) and its California counterpart - FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act) cover disabled employees as well as employees whom the employer has regarded or treated as having had any physical or mental disability or medical condition that makes achievement of a major life activity difficult.

California Government Code section 12940(m) requires covered employers to make reasonable accommodations for the known physical or mental disability of an employee, unless undue hardship on the employer's business would result. Under section 12940(f)(2) states that an employer may require any examinations of inquiries so long as they are job related and consistent with business necessity to determine its employees' health condition for the purpose of compliance with disability laws.

The FEHA's requirement of reasonable accommodations is triggered when the employer becomes aware of an employee's disability, which may occur because it is an obvious disability, the employee has disclosed the condition,or the employer has obtained a medical opinion through a fitness for duty examination. The three primary results of a medical examination are: (1) the employee is qualified to perform the job without the need for any accommodation and poses no safety risk; (2) the employee will be able to perform his job with a reasonable accommodation; or (3) the employee is not qualified to perform the job due to his condition or due to a safety risk, and there are no reasonable accommodations that would enable for that worker to perform the essential duties of his job.

If the employee is qualified and requires no accommodations, the employer must return the employee to the job. If the employee requires a reasonable accommodation upon returning to work, the employer must explore if and how this can be done through an interactive process. Accommodations can include a wider variety of job or work station modification.

If it has been determined that the employee is not fit to return to work, the employer must consider whether the employee is temporarily unable to perform the essential functions of the job, and if so, whether a leave of absence is required or appropriate under the provisions of FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) or CFRA (California Family Rights Act). Other California leave laws may also come into play.

If the employee cannot perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation, the employer may be able to lawfully terminate that employee's employment or refusing reinstatement.

FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act) prohibits disability discrimination and pregnancy based discrimination in California. To prove a wrongful termination claim based on pregnancy discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodations to a pregnant employee at workplace, first she has to prove that her condition constitutes disability within the meaning of the statute Cal. Gov. Code section 12940(m) which prohibits employment discrimination based on actual or perceived disability, as normal pregnancy itself is not considered disability entitling an employee to special accommodations.

Under California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) physical disability is defined as a condition that limits a major life activity. Thus, the female worker must show that a condition arising out of her pregnancy limited one or more of her major life conditions. An employee must specific state which of her daily functions was impaired by the condition arising out of pregnancy and what exactly she was not able to do in a course of her daily life that she would have otherwise been able to do.

In one case, the court rejected the employee’s argument that her morning sickness during pregnancy constituted disability entitling her to the protection of pregnancy and disability discrimination laws. The court stated that according to Fair Employment and Housing Commission regulation 7291.2(g) a woman is “considered to be ‘disabled by pregnancy’ if she is suffering from severe ‘morning sickness'.”

Two critical aspects of proving (discriminatory) workplace retaliation for filing a workers compensation claim or engaging in other protected activity are: (1) proving causal relationship between the filing of the the workers compensation claim (or engaging in other protected activity) and the discriminatory actions by the employer; and (2) proving tat the employee was qualified and able to perform his or her job at the time when discrimination took place.

Careful investigation of the facts and circumstances of the employee's employment and wrongful termination is essential. Obviously, with respect to establishing the causal relationship, the closer in proximity of time the discriminatory conduct is to the employer's learning of the employee's filing a workers compensation claim, the more likely the causal link will seem to the judge, jury, or an arbitrator.

The first very important component of proving retaliation is in disproving a possible legitimate reason for termination, the most common of which is poor performance. Thus, in a case of alleged retaliation, like in most other discrimination claims, an attorney should seek evidence such as the employee's productivity and performance records, including all evaluations, commendations, promotions, raises, and any disciplinary measures.

The second component of demonstrating unlawful retaliation is the evidence specific to the workers' compensation system. Information to obtain of this type includes the number and disposition of all workers' compensation claims that have been filed against the employer, and information about the whereabouts and subsequent histories of employees who had filed claims.

The third piece of evidence essential to proving retaliation claim is the aggrieved employee's hospital and medical records, with special attention to the timing of visits to health care providers. The employer may have likely retaliated for an employee taking time off to see a doctor or get treatment, which in many cases is also considered an unlawful retaliation and disability discrimination.

It is also important to obtain documents evidencing the employer's position with respect to the underlying workers' compensation claim. i.e. Was your workers compensation claim contested by the employer? On what grounds? How vigorously? What was the outcome?

It is hard to overestimate the importance of documentary evidence in proving retaliation and disability discrimination claims in California. As in most individual discrimination claims, the testimony of the employee and employer generally ends up in flat contradiction regarding key elements of the claim. Proper documentation is likely to be crucial in corroborate the employee's testimony and disprove the testimony of the employer, casting doubt on the truthfulness of the employer's stated motives for discriminating and/or terminating your employment.

It is not uncommon for an employer to terminate an employee because of his or her disability in violation of FEHA and other anti-discrimination laws, and attempt to mask disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodations by telling an employee while terminating him that he can apply for other jobs in the company that might suit him. This move seems to be particularly obvious when the employer tells the employee that he should apply for any job externally, like any other outside applicant, not having any priority in hiring or consideration for any position.

The California courts are unimpressed with this move to go around the law protecting disabled workers. The Ninth Circuit specifically held in Barnett v. U.S. Air. Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 228 F.3d 1105 that an offer to bid on other jobs, "a right the employee already had," did not represent reasonable accommodations as required by law. Reassignment involves more than a mere opportunity for disabled employees to compete. Quoting EEOC guidelines, the court concluded that reassignment within the meaning of reasonable accommodations means that the employee gets the vacant position if he/she is qualified for it. Otherwise, reassignment would be of little value and would not be implemented as Congresses intended it when it enacted disability anti-discrimination laws.

The California Supreme Court held that high blood pressure (hypertension) may be a protected disability at workplace within the meaning of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) in American National Insurance Co. v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission 32 Cal.3d 603 (1982). In that case, an insurance company terminated a sale and debit agent because of his elevated blood pressure. The Supreme Court held that high blood pressure may be a "physical handicap" under the FEHA, since the statutory definition of the protected disability under Cal. Gov. Code section 12926(h) permits consideration of all handicaps that are physical, and not only those are are presently disabling.

In explaining section 12926(h), the court resorted to the literal definition of the term "handicap" as defined in Webster's dictionary: "physical handicap includes ..., or any other health impairment which requires special education or related services. The Court further emphasized that the law protecting workers from being discriminated based on their disability clearly was designed to prevent employers from acting arbitrarily against physical condition that, whether actually or potentially handicapping, may present no current job disability or job-related health risk.

Thus, the mere fact that a worker isn't constantly experiencing the symptoms of high-blood pressure, doesn't mean that he is not disabled within the meaning of FEHA, as he or she does face an actual risk of experiencing those disabling symptoms.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act basically defines two categories of disability: mental disability and physical disability. Each category contains its own specific definitions. In addition, under FEHA, an employee with a "medical condition" which is not quite considered a disability is also entitled to a reasonable accommodation.

The following are the specific definitions of physical disability under FEHA:having any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that affects one or more of several body systems and limits a major life activity. The body systems listed include the neurological, immunological, muscular and skeletal, respiratory, speech, reproductive, digestive, urinary, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine systems. The major life activity is considered limited if it makes the achievement of that major activity difficult.

It should be noted that sexual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, or psychoactive substance use disorders resulting form the current unlawful use of controlled substances or other drugs, are specifically excluded and are not protected as disabilities under FEHA.

Once a disability that is protected under the law is established, an employer is obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation unless the accommodation would constitute an under hardship on the employer's business operation.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides a non-exhaustive list of possible accommodations that an employer may consider to accommodate a qualified disability or medical condition of an employee. These typical reasonable accommodations include, but are not limited to:

• Making facilities accessible to and usable by disabled individuals;
• Job restructuring (modifying daily duties of an employee);
• Offering part-time or modified work schedules (to put less physical stress or allow time for medical appointments related to the disability);
• Reassigning to a vacant position;
• Acquiring or modifying equipment or devices (such as ergonomic keyboards, chairs, and lifting devices);
• Adjusting or modifying examinations, training materials or policies;and
• Other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities as per California Government Code § 12926(n).

Because the above list is non-exhaustive and a range of other accommodations may be considered in the interactive process with an employee which employer must engage into by law, California courts look to cases decided under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for guidance. Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc.

Under California law (Fair Employment and Housing Act or "FEHA") an employer has an affirmative duty to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process with an employee who is disabled or who the employer perceives to be disabled.

The interactive process is a discussion between an employer and employee that contemplates that the employee and employer will communicate directly with each other to exchange information about job skills and job openings to find a reasonable accommodations to the employee's disability to the extent possible, without constituting undue hardship on the employer.

Communicating with the employee's representatives, rather than with the employee personally, may suffice in some circumstances. In Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc., the court noted that it was appropriate for the employer to consult with employee's doctors and vocational rehabilitation specialists in order to identify available and suitable positions and offer those to the disabled employee.

The employer must engage in a “timely, good faith interactive process ... in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition. Although the law doesn't specifically provide, the California court rulings make it clear that the employer must initiate the interactive process if the employee's disability is known or apparent. An employer who knows of the disability of an employee has an affirmative duty to make known to the employee other suitable job opportunities. Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 53 CA4th 935, 950.

An employer “knows an employee has a disability when the employee tells the employer about his condition, or when the employer otherwise becomes aware of the condition, such as through a third party or by observation.” Faust v. California Portland Cement Co. (2007) 150 CA4th 864, 887. This means that if the employee's medical condition is not apparent (such as diabetes, carpal tunnel syndrome, etc.), the employer cannot be under a legal obligation to engage in an interactive process with that employee if the employer doesn't know and has no reason to know that the employee is suffering from disability or medical condition. However, if the employee's condition is obvious (a woman with an obvious pregnancy, an employee with a cast on his hand or foot, etc...) then the employer has to initiate the interactive process of providing reasonable accommodations to that disabled employee.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for the known disabilities of applicants and employees to enable them to perform a position's essential functions, unless doing so would produce under hardship on the employer.

"Reasonable accommodation" means that employers have an affirmative duty to accommodate disabled workers. Some highly appointed executives often argue that their company should not be liable for failure to provide reasonable accommodation because the disabled employee did not inform them personally of his condition and only informed his/her immediate supervisor. However, this argument will not allow the employer to escape liability because a supervisor is the employer's agent for purposes of the duty to accommodate. That is, if a supervisor has acquired knowledge that he or she had a duty to communicate to the employer information about an employee's disability or medical condition, a conclusive presumption arises that the supervisor had done so. California Fair Employment and Housing Comm'n v. Gemini Aluminum Corp (2004).

This law makes perfect sense, as it would be unreasonable to expect a disabled or sick employee to notify of his condition every person superior to him in the company, especially if that company is large and employees hundreds of supervisors and managers. Arkady Itkin, San Francisco employment lawyer.

Under California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), an employer must make "reasonable accommodation" for individuals with known disabilities unless it can demonstrate that doing so would be an undue hardship on the business. Failure to make a reasonable accommodation is itself an unlawful practice than can give rise to a civil suit and damages under FEHA.

Under the law, the employer must engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process to determine effective reasonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodation may, but does not necessarily include the following: making existing facilities readily accessible to and usual by individuals with disabilities, such as wheelchair users; restructuring job schedules and responsibilities to allow an employee to attend medical appointments or reduce work load; acquiring or modifying equipment or devices, such as ergonomic chairs and keyboards, etc. Further, the employer has affirmative duty to inform a disabled employee of other job opportunities and lean whether the employee is interested in and qualified for them.

It is important to remember that an employer is not obligated to choose the best accommodation or the one sought by the employee. Rather, the employer has the ultimate discretion to choose among effective accommodations.

Further, under FEHA the employer does not have to provide reasonable accommodation if the employee or job applicant cannot perform the essential duties of the job, even with an accommodation. In that case, the employer can discharge or refuse to hire the individual.