Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc.
An employer who knows of an employee’s disability has an affirmative duty to make known available, suitable job opportunities and to determine whether the employee is interested and qualified — not merely to wait for the employee to ask.
Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 935
Disability
Reasonable Accommodation
Reassignment
FEHA
Reversed
In brief. The court held that “[a]n employer who knows of the disability of an employee has an affirmative duty to make known to the employee other suitable job opportunities with the employer and to determine whether the employee is interested in, and qualified for, those positions, if the employer can do so without undue hardship.” (Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 935, 950–951.) The duty is the employer’s to initiate; it cannot sit back and wait for the disabled employee to identify vacancies. (Ibid.)
Facts
Ronald Prilliman was a pilot for United Air Lines. (53 Cal.App.4th at pp. 940–942.) After he was diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, he was removed from flight duty and placed on medical leave; his condition prevented him from continuing as a pilot. (Ibid.) Prilliman alleged that United failed to accommodate his disability — in particular, that it did not inform him of, or offer to place him in, other available ground positions he was qualified to perform, instead leaving him on leave and ultimately separating him. (Id. at pp. 941–943.) He sued under the FEHA for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. (Id. at p. 943.)
Procedural history
The trial court granted United summary judgment. (53 Cal.App.4th at pp. 943–944.) The Court of Appeal reversed as to Prilliman, holding that triable issues existed on whether United satisfied its affirmative duty to identify and offer suitable available positions, and remanded. (Id. at pp. 951–961.)
Issue
Does a FEHA employer that knows of an employee’s disability have an affirmative obligation to inform the employee of, and consider the employee for, other suitable available positions — or may it leave the employee to discover and request vacancies on his own? (53 Cal.App.4th at pp. 947–951.)
Holding
The employer must take the initiative. “An employer who knows of the disability of an employee has an affirmative duty to make known to the employee other suitable job opportunities with the employer and to determine whether the employee is interested in, and qualified for, those positions, if the employer can do so without undue hardship or if the employer offers similar assistance or benefit to other . . . employees or has a policy of offering such assistance.” (53 Cal.App.4th at pp. 950–951.) Because triable issues remained on whether United did so, summary judgment as to Prilliman was reversed. (Id. at p. 961.)
Reasoning
1. Reasonable accommodation includes reassignment. The court reaffirmed that under the FEHA “[e]mployers must make reasonable accommodations” for known disabilities, and that reasonable accommodation can include reassigning the disabled employee to a vacant position the employee can perform. (53 Cal.App.4th at pp. 947–950.) Accommodation is not limited to modifying the existing job. (Ibid.)
2. The duty to inform is affirmative. The core holding is that the obligation runs from employer to employee: once the employer knows of the disability, it must “make known” suitable openings and assess the employee’s interest and qualifications, rather than placing the entire burden of locating vacancies on the disabled employee. (53 Cal.App.4th at pp. 950–951.) The employer has superior knowledge of its own openings, so fairness and the FEHA’s remedial purpose require it to share that information and explore reassignment. (Ibid.)
3. Limits — undue hardship and even-handedness. The duty is bounded. It applies where the employer can perform it “without undue hardship,” or where the employer extends comparable assistance to other employees or has a policy of doing so. (53 Cal.App.4th at pp. 950–951.) The employer need not create a new position or displace another worker, and the employee must be qualified for the available role. (Ibid.)
4. Triable issues on this record. Because the evidence raised genuine disputes about what United knew, what positions were available, and whether it discharged its affirmative duty, the matter could not be resolved on summary judgment and had to be tried. (53 Cal.App.4th at pp. 951–961.)
Significance
Prilliman is a foundational California disability-accommodation decision, establishing the employer’s affirmative duty to inform a known-disabled employee of suitable available positions and to consider reassignment — not merely to respond to employee requests. It is a building block of the modern accommodation framework later refined by Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 952 (the employee’s burden to prove an available accommodation, including reassignment) and Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 (the interactive-process claim requires an objectively available accommodation), and it operates alongside Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254 (qualified-individual burden) and Wallace v. County of Stanislaus (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 109. Prilliman is routinely cited for the proposition that an employer cannot satisfy its accommodation duty by passively leaving a disabled employee to find openings alone. See the Review’s coverage of the disability line.
Key quotes
“An employer who knows of the disability of an employee has an affirmative duty to make known to the employee other suitable job opportunities with the employer and to determine whether the employee is interested in, and qualified for, those positions, if the employer can do so without undue hardship.” (Prilliman, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at pp. 950–951.)
Read the full opinion (California Court of Appeal — full text) →
Practice pointer
Put the initiative on the employer. Prilliman lets a disability plaintiff show failure to accommodate by proving the employer knew of the disability yet did not affirmatively inform the employee of, and consider him for, suitable available positions. Develop evidence of vacancies the employee could perform, the employer’s knowledge of them, and the absence of any genuine effort to inform or reassign. Combine with the interactive-process duty and with Nadaf-Rahrov (reassignment as accommodation; the position must exist and be vacant) and Scotch (identify an objectively available accommodation, through discovery if needed). Defendants should document a good-faith search for vacancies, communications offering them, and any undue-hardship justification.
Open questions
How extensive the employer’s affirmative search for vacancies must be — across what time frame, locations, and business units — and how Prilliman’s duty-to-inform interacts with the employee’s burden under Nadaf-Rahrov to prove an available accommodation, continue to be litigated. The scope of the “undue hardship” and even-handedness limits also remains fact-specific.