Understanding Workplace Accommodations in California

Overview

California law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities and sincerely held religious beliefs. The primary statute governing workplace accommodations is the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), codified at Government Code Sections 12900 - 12996. Federal law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, provides additional and sometimes overlapping protections.

The accommodation process involves an interactive dialogue between the employer and the employee to identify modifications or adjustments that allow the employee to perform the essential functions of their job. This process, and the obligations it imposes on both parties, is a frequent source of workplace disputes.

This guide provides a general overview of accommodation law in California. It does not constitute legal advice.

Disability Accommodations Under FEHA

Definition of Disability

California's definition of "disability" under FEHA is broader than the federal definition under the ADA. Under FEHA, a physical or mental condition qualifies as a disability if it limits a major life activity. By contrast, the ADA requires that the condition substantially limits a major life activity. This distinction means that conditions that may not qualify as disabilities under federal law may still be protected under California law.

Major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, working, and engaging in social interactions.

Employer Coverage

The disability accommodation provisions of FEHA apply to employers with five (5) or more employees.

Essential Functions

An employee is entitled to accommodation only if they are a "qualified individual", meaning they can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. Essential functions are the fundamental duties of the position, as distinguished from marginal or incidental tasks. Factors relevant to identifying essential functions include the employer's judgment, written job descriptions, the amount of time spent performing the function, and the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function.

The Interactive Process

What It Is

When an employer becomes aware, or should become aware, that an employee's disability may require accommodation, FEHA requires the employer to initiate a timely, good-faith interactive process with the employee to explore potential reasonable accommodations. This obligation was addressed at length in Scotch v. Art Institute of California-Orange County, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986. Two principles from that case are worth carrying: the employee generally has to request an accommodation to start the process, and where the process breaks down, responsibility rests with whichever party failed to participate in good faith. Scotch also sets a demanding requirement on the employee once litigation begins: to prevail, they must be able to identify an available accommodation the interactive process should have produced. That is the point at which these claims most often fail, which is a reason to keep a record of what was proposed and by whom while it is happening.

How It Works

The interactive process is a collaborative, ongoing dialogue, not a one-time exchange. It generally involves:

1. Identification of the limitation. The employer and employee discuss the employee's functional limitations and how they affect the employee's ability to perform essential job functions.

2. Exploration of accommodations. The parties identify potential accommodations that would allow the employee to perform the essential functions of the job. The employee's preferences are considered, but the employer has discretion to choose among effective accommodations.

3. Implementation and follow-up. Once an accommodation is agreed upon, the employer implements it and follows up to assess its effectiveness. If the accommodation is not effective, the interactive process resumes.

Obligations of Both Parties

Both the employer and the employee have obligations in the interactive process:

• Employer obligations. The employer must initiate the process when it becomes aware of the need for accommodation, engage in good faith, and consider all potential accommodations. An employer's failure to engage in the interactive process may itself constitute a FEHA violation.

• Employee obligations. The employee is expected to cooperate in the interactive process, provide information about their functional limitations, and respond to the employer's inquiries. An employee who refuses to participate in the interactive process or fails to provide necessary medical documentation may undermine their accommodation claim.

Examples of Reasonable Accommodations

Reasonable accommodations are modifications or adjustments to the work environment, job duties, or policies that enable a qualified employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of their position. Examples may include:

• Modified work schedules or flexible hours
• Telecommuting or remote work arrangements
• Job restructuring (modifying or redistributing marginal functions)
• Reassignment to a vacant position for which the employee is qualified
• Providing assistive technology or equipment
• Making the workplace physically accessible
• Modifying workplace policies (such as allowing more frequent breaks)
• Providing a leave of absence as an accommodation
• Modifying training materials or methods

The specific accommodation required depends on the individual employee's limitations, the essential functions of the job, and the resources and operations of the employer. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.

Reassignment as an Accommodation

Under FEHA, reassignment to a vacant position is considered a reasonable accommodation when the employee can no longer perform the essential functions of their current position, even with other accommodations. In Atkins v. City of Los Angeles (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 696, the court addressed the employer's obligations regarding reassignment.

Reassignment is generally considered an accommodation of last resort, meaning the employer should first explore whether the employee can be accommodated in their current position. The employee does not need to compete for the vacant position, but they must be qualified for it.

Undue Hardship

An employer is not required to provide an accommodation that would impose an undue hardship on the employer's operations. Under FEHA, undue hardship is defined as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, considering factors such as:

• The nature and cost of the accommodation
• The overall financial resources of the employer
• The number of employees and the type of operations
• The impact of the accommodation on the operation of the employer's business

The undue hardship defense is fact-specific and is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The burden of proving undue hardship rests on the employer.

Religious Accommodations

The Obligation

In addition to disability accommodations, FEHA and federal law (Title VII) require employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, and practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.

What May Require Accommodation

Religious accommodations may involve:

• Scheduling modifications for religious observances (such as Sabbath observance or religious holidays)
• Exceptions to dress code or grooming policies
• Modifications to work duties that conflict with religious beliefs
• Providing a space for prayer or religious practice

Undue Hardship Standard

Under federal law, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Groff v. DeJoy (2023) 600 U.S. 447, an employer must show that an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the employer's business to establish undue hardship. This standard replaced the prior, more employer-friendly "de minimis cost" standard from Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) 432 U.S. 63.

Under FEHA, the undue hardship analysis for religious accommodations follows the same framework as for disability accommodations.

Medical Documentation

Employers may request medical documentation to verify the existence of a disability and the need for accommodation. However, employers are not entitled to unlimited access to the employee's medical records. The employer may generally request:

• Verification that the employee has a disability within the meaning of the law
• Information about the employee's functional limitations
• Information about how the disability affects the employee's ability to perform the essential functions of the job
• Suggested accommodations from the healthcare provider

Medical information obtained by the employer must be maintained as confidential and kept in a separate medical file, consistent with FEHA and the ADA.

Failure to Accommodate as a Separate Claim

Under FEHA these are two separate statutory violations. Government Code § 12940(m) makes it an unlawful employment practice to fail to make reasonable accommodation for a known disability. Section 12940(n) separately makes it unlawful to fail to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process. Each is an independent cause of action, and neither requires proving disability discrimination.

If You Are Denied: Deadlines, Forum, and Remedies

Knowing you have a claim is not the same as knowing what to do with it, and accommodation claims run on the FEHA clock, which has two stages rather than one.

Two Deadlines, Not One

• Three years to file with the Civil Rights Department. Government Code § 12960(e)(5) gives three years from the date the unlawful practice occurred to file a complaint with CRD.
• Then one year from the right-to-sue notice to file suit. Section 12965(c)(1) gives one year from the date of that notice. The two do not run together, and the second one is short. An intake filed comfortably inside the three years is worth nothing if the year after the notice is allowed to lapse.

There is no waiting period before you can get the notice. A complainant may request an immediate right-to-sue notice when filing, and CRD issues it without investigating. The 180-day figure people cite belongs to the EEOC process, not to CRD.

Forum

The administrative route is CRD. After a right-to-sue notice, the civil action goes to superior court. An accommodation denial by a public employer may also carry its own internal procedures, and a union contract may add a grievance route, but neither replaces the FEHA deadlines above.

Remedies

Section 12965(d) authorises the relief a court is empowered to grant, which in an accommodation case commonly means back pay, front pay where reinstatement is impractical, non-economic damages for emotional distress, injunctive relief such as the accommodation itself, and in appropriate cases punitive damages. Attorney's fees and costs are available to a prevailing party under § 12965(c)(6), and a prevailing defendant may recover only where the action was frivolous. That asymmetry is deliberate, and it is why fee exposure is often the number that matters most in these cases.

The interactive-process claim under § 12940(n) is worth pleading in its own right rather than folding into the accommodation claim, because an employer can lose on the process even where a court later finds no accommodation would have worked.

Conclusion

California's accommodation laws impose significant obligations on employers to work collaboratively with employees to find effective solutions that allow qualified individuals to perform their jobs. The interactive process is central to this framework, and both parties bear responsibilities. Because accommodation issues are highly individualized and fact-dependent, employees and employers with questions are encouraged to consult with a qualified employment law attorney.