Government Code § 12926
FEHA definitions — including a disability standard broader than the ADA
Section 12926 supplies the FEHA’s definitions — including a disability standard construed more broadly than the federal ADA, and the five-employee coverage threshold.
Read the official text at California Legislative Information →
Overview
Government Code section 12926 is the FEHA’s definitional provision. It supplies the meanings of the terms on which liability turns — most importantly, who counts as an “employer” and what constitutes a covered “disability.” These definitions are not mere boilerplate; California has deliberately drawn several of them more broadly than their federal counterparts.
In disability and accommodation cases especially, the definitions in section 12926 do real work, because California protects a wider range of conditions than the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
Key definitions
A physical or mental condition that limits a major life activity is a disability under the FEHA. California pointedly does not require the ADA’s “substantial” limitation, so conditions that might fall outside federal coverage are protected under state law.
Generally an entity that regularly employs five or more persons. This threshold defines FEHA coverage and frames many of the Act’s standards.
The section also defines “medical condition,” “reasonable accommodation,” “interactive process,” and other operative terms that recur throughout the Act.
Judicial application
California courts apply section 12926’s broad disability definition to bring conditions within FEHA’s protection that might not qualify under federal law, and the definitions inform the analysis of accommodation and interactive-process claims under Government Code section 12940. (See Gov. Code § 12940; Soria v. Univision.)
Practice notes
At the threshold of any FEHA case, confirm employer coverage under the size definition and establish that the plaintiff’s condition meets California’s broad disability definition. Resist any attempt to import the narrower federal “substantial limitation” requirement.
Related on this site
Practitioner analysis, current as of June 2026 — not the statute itself. Statutes are amended and decisional law evolves; confirm the operative language and current authority at the official source before relying.
See also: Geduldig v. Aiello