Reasonable Accommodations

November 19, 2025

Avoid This Mistake When Requesting Religious Accommodation

Workers in California often assume that because religious beliefs are private, they never have to explain anything about their religion when requesting a workplace accommodation. While it’s true that employers cannot demand intrusive details, many employees make the opposite mistake: they refuse to provide even the basic information needed for the employer to evaluate their request.

Under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), employees are protected from religious discrimination — but those protections only apply when the employee actually provides sufficient information for the employer to understand what accommodation is needed. Refusing to give essential information can legally justify the employer in denying that accommodation request.

Even though employers are generally not entitled to challenge, criticize, or judge your religion, they are entitled to confirm that the request for accommodation is religious in nature, what the conflict is between the belief and a job requirement, and evaluate various options for a reasonable accommodation. While you don’t have to share your life story or detailed theological explanations for your beliefs, you also can’t take the position of “my beliefs are private, and I don’t have to tell you anything” when you request an accommodation. In fact, this type of approach will almost guarantee a denial of that accommodation request, and legally – the employer will likely be justified in doing so.

April 22, 2024

Employers’ Obligations to Accommodate Religion Under Title VII

by Arkady Itkin

The Groff v Dejoy Postmaster General is a recent, significant Supreme Court case, which sets the employers’ obligation to accommodate employee religious practices. This case is extremely helpful to all those workers who need a religious accommodation at workplace, especially if it involves not working on certain days or holidays. In Groff, the highest Court has overturned a number of other decisions, which held that an employer is not required to “bear more than de minimus cost” in order to provide a religious accommodation.

The Supreme Court logically observed that these prior holdings are simply incompatible with the very language of Title VII, which requires employers to provide a religious accommodation unless it imposes “undue hardship” on their operations. “Undue hardship” is to mean a burden that is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business. The Court further noted that even if the standard for relieving the employer of their obligation to accommodate was “hardship” and not “undue hardship”, it would still be a much higher standard than “more than de minimus cost”. The Court went on to reiterate this point: “What is most important is that “undue hardship” in Title VII means what it says, and courts should resolve whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer’s business in the common-sense manner that it would use in apply any such test.” The Court further observed: “An employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is “undue”, and a hardship that is attributable to other employees’ animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodation religious practice cannot be considered “undue”.

The Supreme Court also clarified that faced with an accommodation request such as Groff’s (a request to be exempt from working on Sundays), it would not be enough for an employer to conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute undue hardship. Consideration of other options, such as voluntary shift swapping, would also be necessary. This is another reminder to employers (and employees as well) that both sides are encouraged to be creative when searching for appropriate accommodations, as there is no set list of options by law, and availability and reasonable of any considered accommodations depends on that employee’s job duties, the nature of employer’s business and their resources, and other factors unique to that specific situation.

December 7, 2023

Avoid This Mistake When Requesting A Religiuos Accommodation At Workplace

by Arkady Itkin

Under California law, when you apply for a religious accommodation at workplace – your employer is entitled to request further information to better understand the reasons behind your request. The law is not clear what information the employer can inquire about, but they are entitled to a basic follow-up, reasonably necessary to address your request. This right has to be balanced against the idea that a claimed religious belief must generally be presumed true. Let’s look at two examples of religious accommodation requests and discuss one common mistake that an employee should avoid making in this process:

Let’s say you are a Sabbath-observing Jew. You request that your employer allow you not to work on Saturdays to accommodate your religious practice. The employer would likely be allowed to ask you how long you have been observing Sabbath, and how strict your observance is, i.e. – whether you also do not drive, do not cook, and do not use a computer / TV on Saturdays. It would likely be unlawful for that employer to demand to test you on your knowledge of Judaism or condition granting your accommodation on your presenting some kind of documentation of your temple attendance.
Let’s say you request a religious exemption from your employer’s requirement to be vaccinated against Covid-19 on the grounds of your adherence to an Eastern religion that cherishes purity of life and sanctity of body. Your employer is likely entitled to ask you for more information about your religion, even if it’s not an organized religion, and whether you also refrain from taking other vaccines or medications, and since when. The employer is likely not allowed to demand that you share with them your medication history from birth, a list of all of your religious beliefs, and other types of information that go far beyond what would be directly relevant to understanding the reasons behind your religious request.

December 23, 2013

Equal Treatment Can Be Discrimination at Workplace

by Arkady Itkin

Although this sounds counter-intuitive, equal treatment of all employees can be discriminatory and in violation of disability and other laws. The seminal case on this issues is US Airways, Inc. v Barnett (2002), decided by the US Supreme Court. In that case, the high court considered whether leave and other policies equally applied to all employees, regardless of their disabilities and limitations can still be discriminatory. The answer is yes. The Court said that an employer who treats all employees equally might still be in violation of the law, since preferences sometimes prove necessary to achieve the basic equal opportunity goal envisioned by law. The law requires preferences in the form of reasonable accommodations that are needed for those with disabilities to obtain the same workplace opportunities that those without disabilities automatically enjoy.

The Court further noted that by definition any special “accommodation” requires the employer to treat an employee with a disability differently, i.e. preferentially. Otherwise, neutral office assignment rules would automatically prevent the accommodation of an employee whose disability-imposed limitations require him to work on the ground floor. Neutral “break-from-work” rules would automatically prevent the accommodation of an individual who needs additional breaks from work, perhaps to permit medical visits. Likewise, neutral furniture budget rules would automatically prevent the accommodation of an individual who needs a different kind of chair or desk.

January 23, 2011

Asthma and Sensitivity to Smoke May Be Protected Medical Conditions at Workplace

by Arkady Itkin

Asthma and sensitivity to tobacco smoke and other pollutants are conditions that have been recognized by courts as a protected disability at workplace, entitling the workers suffering from those conditions to a reasonable accommodation.

In County of Fresno v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission (1991), the employer (the county) argued that hypersensitivity to smoke is either a non-handicapping respiratory disorder, not covered by the California disability laws, or an “environmental limitation” rather than a physical limitation. The court has rejected both arguments, finding that because of the respiratory disorder, exposure to tobacco smoke produced by other employees substantially limited the Plaintiff’s ability to breathe, rendering the Plaintiff “handicapped” and covered by ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) / FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act). In that case, the employer actually attempted to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff, and the following actions were taken: smokers used desktop air filtration machines, employees kept windows open, management separated Plaintiff’s desk from the desks of smokers, Plaintiff was offered an alternative position in another department, where smoking was not permitted. Because all of the above accommodations proved to be either futile or ineffective, the court still found that the employer failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff.

January 19, 2011

California Disability Rights – Working from Home as a Reasonable Accommodation

by Arkady Itkin

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.
work-from-home-disability-reasonable-accommodation
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.

April 5, 2009

Employers’ Undue Hardship Defense Explained

by Arkady Itkin

Under both FEHA and ADA, employers must make reasonable accommodations to the disability of an individual unless the employer can demonstrate that doing so would impose “undue hardship.” Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 2 section 7293.9. In other words, there are limits on the restructuring that an employer needs to do. Accommodations need only be “reasonable.” An employer need not undertake an accommodation that would created an “undue hardship.”

“Undue hardship” means an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of the following factors: (1) the nature and cost of the accommodation needed; (2) the overall financial resources of the facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodations, the number of persons employed at the facility, and the effect on expenses and resources or the impact otherwise of these accommodations upon the operation of the facility; (3) the overall financial resources of the covered entity with respect to the number of employees, and the number, type, and location of its facilities; (4) the type of operations, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of the entity; and (5) the geographic separateness, administrative, or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities.

The burden on proving that providing reasonable accommodations would constitute undue hardship is on the employer, as the law makes clear that the term “reasonable accommodation” is to be interpreted flexibly to that employer must not only remove obstacles that are in the way of the progress of the disabled, but that they actively restructure their way of doing business in order to accommodate the needs of their disabled employees. Prilliman v. United Airlines, Inc. (1997)

December 13, 2008

Availability of Reasonable Accommodation

by Arkady Itkin

Last week, I participated in the interactive process discussion with my client and his employer – the state agency in Sacramento, to find reasonable accommodations to his disability (impairment of short-term memory and learning disability). The employer should an admirable willingness to comply with the disability laws under FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act) and engaged in the interactive process as required by law.

During our discussion in an attempt to see what reasonable accommodations, if any, may be available to my client, the employment lawyer for the State kept reiterating that it’s the employee’s burden to show that such reasonable accommodations are available. I, on the other hand, had to point out to the counsel for the State that he was incorrect. I reminded him that in one of the leading cases on the issue, Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc. (9th Cir. 2000), the employer also tried to place the entire burden of showing the availability of reasonable accommodations on the employee, but the court disagreed, stating that to put the entire burden for finding a reasonable accommodation on the disabled employee and relief the employer from the duty to identify possible accommodations conflicts with the purpose of the law and thus doesn’t make sense.

The employer must participate in a search for effective accommodations to disabilities of their employees because these employees do not have at their disposal the extensive information concerning possible alternative positions or possible accommodations that the employer might have. Placing the entire burden on the employee to identify a reasonable accommodation risk shutting out many workers simply because they do not have the superior knowledge of the workplace that the employer has.

November 11, 2008

San Francisco Wrongful Termination Attorney: Interactive Process and Disability Discrimination

by Arkady Itkin

Once an employer becomes aware of the need for accommodation for a qualifying disabled employee, that employer has a mandatory obligation under the law to engage in an interactive process with the employee to identify and implement appropriate reasonable accommodations. An appropriate reasonable accommodation must be effective in enabling the employee to perform the duties of the position.

The interactive process requires communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations between employers and individual employees, and neither side can delay or obstruct the process. A party or an employer that obstructs or delays an interactive process may be found liable for acting in bad faith.

The duty to accommodate disability is a continuing duty that is not exhausted by one effort. The EEOC Enforcement Guidance notes that an employer must consider each request for reasonable accommodation, and that if a reasonable accommodation turns out to be ineffective and the employee with disability remains unable to perform an essential function, the employer must consider whether there would be an alternative reasonable accommodation that would not pose an undue hardship. This rule fosters the framework of cooperative problem solving contemplated by the law, by encouraging employers to seek to find accommodations that really work, while preventing employees from requesting the most drastic and burdensome accommodations possible.

November 5, 2008

California Employment Law: Is employer’s offer to apply for another position considered a reasonable accommodation?

by Arkady Itkin

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.