Practice Guide · Disability Rights at Work

Disability Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation

A practitioner’s synthesis of FEHA’s disability protections — California’s broader-than-federal definition of disability, the duty not to discriminate, the separate duties to provide reasonable accommodation and to engage in the interactive process, how the burdens of proof are allocated, and the procedural framework. A research starting point you can cite from.

Practice Guide
Disability
Reasonable Accommodation
Interactive Process
Gov. Code § 12940(m), (n)
Authorities current to June 2026

By Jonathan J. Delshad, Editor-in-Chief · Last reviewed June 22, 2026

In brief. FEHA imposes three distinct disability-related duties on employers: not to discriminate because of a disability (Gov. Code, § 12940(a)); to provide reasonable accommodation for a known disability (id., subd. (m)); and to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process to identify accommodations (id., subd. (n)). California’s definition of disability is broader than the federal ADA — it requires only that a condition “limit” a major life activity, not “substantially limit” it. The failure-to-accommodate and failure-to-engage claims are separate and independently actionable. This guide collects the governing authority.

1. What counts as a disability — broader than the ADA

California disability protection is “independent” of, and broader than, the federal ADA, which provides only “a floor of protection.” (Gov. Code, § 12926.1, subd. (a).) The decisive difference is the threshold: the FEHA definitions of physical and mental disability “require a ‘limitation’ upon a major life activity, but do not require, as does the federal [ADA], a ‘substantial limitation.’ This distinction is intended to result in broader coverage under the law of this state.” (Id., subd. (c).) A condition “limits a major life activity if it makes the achievement of the major life activity difficult” (id., § 12926, subd. (m)(1)(B)(ii)); the limitation is assessed without regard to mitigating measures such as medication or assistive devices (unless the mitigating measure itself limits a major life activity); and “[m]ajor life activities” — expressly including working — are “broadly construed.” (Id., subd. (m).) FEHA also reaches a “medical condition” (certain cancer-related and genetic conditions) (id., subd. (i)) and protects employees who are regarded as or perceived to have a disability. The practical lesson: many conditions that would fail the ADA’s “substantially limits” test are covered under California law, and counsel should plead the disability under FEHA’s lower threshold.

2. Disability discrimination (§ 12940(a))

It is unlawful to take an adverse action against an employee because of disability. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a).) Notably, the plaintiff need not prove the employer acted out of animosity or ill will: “California law does not require an employee with an actual or perceived disability to prove that the employer’s adverse employment action was motivated by animosity or ill will against the employee.” (Wallace v. County of Stanislaus (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 109, 115.) The operative question is whether the disability was a substantial motivating reason for the action, applying the standard of Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 232. (Wallace, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at pp. 129–130.) Where the claim rests on circumstantial evidence, disparate-treatment disability claims otherwise proceed through the McDonnell Douglas framework discussed in the FEHA discrimination guide — but the Wallace rule means the plaintiff is not required to prove the kind of subjective hostility a lay jury might associate with “discrimination.”

3. The duty to provide reasonable accommodation (§ 12940(m))

An employer must “make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee,” unless it proves the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (m)(1); see id., § 12926, subd. (u) [defining undue hardship as significant difficulty or expense in light of statutory factors].) Reasonable accommodation “may include … [j]ob restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, [or] acquisition or modification of equipment.” (Id., § 12926, subd. (p)(2).) The elements of a failure-to-accommodate claim are: (1) the plaintiff had a disability known to the employer; (2) the plaintiff could perform the essential functions of the position with reasonable accommodation; and (3) the employer failed to provide it. (See CACI No. 2541.) “Essential functions” are “the fundamental job duties” of the position, not its “marginal functions.” (Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (f).)

Burden of proof. The employee carries the burden on the ability-to-work element: “the plaintiff employee bears the burden of proving he or she was able to do the job, with or without reasonable accommodation.” (Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254, 262.) The employee likewise bears the burden of showing a reasonable accommodation existed — including, where reassignment is at issue, that a vacant position was available for which the employee was qualified. (Nadaf-Rahrov v. The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 952, 978, 984–985.) Undue hardship, by contrast, is the employer’s burden to prove as an affirmative defense.

Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254

Burden of proof

“[T]he plaintiff employee bears the burden of proving he or she was able to do the job, with or without reasonable accommodation.” (42 Cal.4th at p. 262.)

Browse related decisions in the case index →

4. The interactive process (§ 12940(n)) — a separate claim

FEHA separately requires the employer “to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee … to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee … with a known physical or mental disability.” (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (n).) This is an independent obligation, and its breach is a distinct claim from failure to accommodate. The duty is triggered by a request for accommodation, or where the disability and resulting limitations are obvious even without a formal request; the employer that knows of a disability has an “affirmative duty” to explore accommodation, including making known to the employee “other suitable job opportunities.” (Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 935, 950–951.) The process is meant to be a two-way dialogue; an employer that fails to participate in good faith, delays unreasonably, or treats the process as a formality breaches the duty.

To recover on a section 12940(n) claim, however, the employee must ultimately identify a reasonable accommodation that was available at the time the interactive process should have occurred: “an employee must identify a reasonable accommodation that would have been available at the time the interactive process should have occurred.” (Scotch v. The Art Institute of California-Orange County, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1018; see id. at p. 1019.) Because the employer controls much of the information about vacant positions and job requirements, the interactive-process duty and its breach are frequently established through circumstantial evidence. (Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 570, 588, 600–601 [employer is on notice when told of the condition or when it otherwise becomes aware].)

5. The two claims, side by side

Failure to accommodate (§ 12940(m)) — CACI No. 2541: (1) known disability; (2) ability to perform essential functions with reasonable accommodation; (3) failure to accommodate; (4) causation and harm. Failure to engage in the interactive process (§ 12940(n)) — CACI No. 2546: (1) known disability; (2) a request for accommodation (or obvious need); (3) the employee’s willingness to participate; (4) the employer’s failure to participate in a timely, good-faith process; (5) causation and harm. Plead them together: an employer may breach the interactive-process duty even where an accommodation ultimately proves difficult, but the employee should be prepared to identify an accommodation that was objectively available in order to secure a remedy. (Scotch, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1018–1019.) The allocation of the burden on the availability of an accommodation under subdivision (n) has produced some divergence in the Court of Appeal; preserve the issue and marshal concrete evidence of available accommodations regardless.

6. Procedure and remedies

Disability claims under FEHA require the same administrative exhaustion as other FEHA claims: the employee must file a complaint with the Civil Rights Department (CRD) within three years of the unlawful act (Gov. Code, § 12960, subd. (e)(5)) and, after a right-to-sue notice, file suit within one year (id., § 12965, subd. (c)(1)(D)). A prevailing plaintiff may recover make-whole relief — lost wages and benefits, emotional-distress damages, and reinstatement — and reasonable attorney’s fees in the court’s discretion (id., subd. (c)(6)); punitive damages are available on a showing of oppression, fraud, or malice (Civ. Code, § 3294). Because a wrongful refusal to accommodate or to engage in the interactive process frequently culminates in termination, these claims are commonly paired with a discriminatory-discharge claim and, where appropriate, a Tameny public-policy count.

7. Practice pointers

  • Lead with California’s lower threshold. Frame the disability under FEHA’s “limits” standard (§ 12926.1), not the ADA’s “substantially limits” standard, and disregard mitigating measures.
  • Plead accommodation and interactive process as separate counts. They have different elements and a section 12940(n) violation is independently actionable.
  • Develop the available-accommodation evidence. Identify specific vacant positions or schedule/equipment changes; under Green and Nadaf-Rahrov the employee carries this burden, so build the record in discovery.
  • Document the employer’s notice and inaction. Once on notice, the employer has an affirmative duty to explore options (Prilliman); a paper trail of ignored requests is powerful, and forces the employer to shoulder undue hardship as its own burden.
  • Drop the animus framing. Per Wallace, ill will is not required; keep the jury focused on whether disability was a substantial motivating reason.
  • Calendar the FEHA deadlines. Three years to file with the CRD; one year to sue after the right-to-sue notice.

Frequently asked questions

What counts as a disability under California law?

California’s FEHA defines disability broadly — more broadly than the federal ADA. A condition qualifies if it merely “limits” a major life activity (the ADA requires a “substantial” limit), and protection covers conditions that are episodic or in remission, including many chronic illnesses and mental-health conditions.

What is a reasonable accommodation?

A reasonable accommodation is a change to a job or workplace that lets a qualified employee with a disability perform the essential functions of the job — for example, modified duties, a leave of absence, assistive equipment, or reassignment to a vacant position — unless it would cause the employer undue hardship.

Does my employer have to engage in the interactive process?

Yes. The interactive process is a required, good-faith back-and-forth in which the employer and employee work together to find an accommodation. In California, an employer’s failure to engage in this process is itself a separate FEHA violation (Government Code section 12940(n)).

Can I win a disability claim without proving my employer intended to discriminate?

Yes. A failure-to-accommodate or failure-to-engage claim does not require proof of ill will or discriminatory intent. An employer can be liable simply for not providing a reasonable accommodation or not engaging in the interactive process (Wallace v. County of Stanislaus (2016)).

How long do I have to bring a disability discrimination claim?

Generally three years to file a complaint with the Civil Rights Department, and then one year from your right-to-sue notice to file a lawsuit.

Key authorities

Browse related decisions in the case index →