(2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34
Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight · B178676 · Decided June 2, 2006
01. Facts
Charles Gelfo worked for Lockheed Martin and was laid off as part of a reduction in force while he was suffering from a workplace back injury (140 Cal.App.4th at p. 39). Lockheed later offered Gelfo a different position but rescinded the offer after determining that medical restrictions stemming from his back injury rendered him unable to perform the essential functions of the new job and that no reasonable accommodation was possible (id. at p. 39). Gelfo sued for FEHA disability discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of public policy; the trial court found the public-policy claim time-barred and, after trial, the jury returned a verdict against Gelfo on his claim that Lockheed refused to hire him because it perceived him as physically disabled (id. at p. 39).
02. Procedural posture
The Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding the trial court erred in its treatment of the “regarded as” disability theory and the accommodation duty owed to a person perceived as disabled (id. at p. 39).
03. Issue
Whether an employer that regards an employee or applicant as physically disabled — even if the person is not actually disabled — owes a duty under the FEHA to engage in the interactive process and to provide reasonable accommodation.
Holding
Yes. An employer that regards a person as physically disabled must engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodation to that person, even if he or she is not actually disabled; the duty runs to those “regarded as” disabled, not only to the actually disabled (id. at p. 39).
05. Reasoning
The court read the FEHA’s protection of persons “regarded as” having a disability to carry with it the statute’s accommodation obligations, reasoning that an employer who acts on a perception of disability should not escape the duties that perception triggers. To hold otherwise would let employers disadvantage people they treat as disabled while denying them the accommodation the statute affords, undermining the FEHA’s purpose.
Practice Pointer
Gelfo is the go-to authority that the FEHA’s accommodation and interactive-process duties extend to employees an employer merely perceives as disabled. For plaintiff’s counsel, where the employer acted on assumptions about an employee’s medical restrictions, plead a “regarded as” theory and demand the same interactive-process and accommodation analysis owed to the actually disabled — the employer cannot both perceive disability and refuse to accommodate.
06. Open questions
Gelfo confirmed accommodation duties for “regarded as” plaintiffs but left for development how those duties operate when the perceived limitation does not match any actual functional restriction, and how the interactive-process burden is allocated in that setting.
Cite this entry
Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34.
“[An employer] must engage in an informal interactive process … and provide a necessary and reasonable accommodation to an applicant or an employee whom it regards as physically disabled.” — 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 39
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].
Read the full opinion (free full text · Justia) →
See also: California’s Automated-Decision-Making (AI) Employment Regulations — An Employee’s Rights Guide.