Failure To Accommodate Lawyers In California

California provides some of the strongest workplace protections in the country for employees with disabilities and qualifying medical conditions. When an employer refuses to provide reasonable accommodations or fails to engage in the required interactive process, it may constitute a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, commonly referred to as FEHA.

Failure to accommodate claims are fact specific and often involve detailed analysis of job duties, medical limitations, and the employer’s response. Understanding how California law applies is critical before deciding how to move forward.

Because these cases require careful evaluation of medical documentation, essential job functions, and the employer’s stated justification for denial, experienced legal guidance can be decisive. Miracle Mile Law Group represents California employees in disability discrimination and failure to accommodate matters, analyzing whether the employer complied with FEHA’s accommodation and interactive process requirements and pursuing appropriate remedies when violations occur.

What Is A Failure To Accommodate Under California Law

Under California Government Code section 12940, employers with five or more employees must provide reasonable accommodations to employees with a physical or mental disability, medical condition, or pregnancy related limitation, unless doing so would cause undue hardship.

A failure to accommodate occurs when:

• An employee has a qualifying disability or medical condition
• The employee can perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation
• The employer refuses to provide an effective accommodation
• The employer fails to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process

Importantly, California law defines disability more broadly than federal law. A condition does not need to substantially limit a major life activity. It only needs to limit or make a major life activity more difficult. Major life activities include working, concentrating, sleeping, interacting with others, and caring for oneself.

A failure to engage in the interactive process is itself a separate legal violation, even if a reasonable accommodation might not ultimately have been available.

What Counts As A Reasonable Accommodation

A reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment that enables an employee to perform essential job functions. The accommodation must be effective, but it does not have to be the employee’s preferred option.

Common examples include:

• Modified work schedules
• Remote or hybrid work arrangements
• Leave for medical treatment or recovery
• Reassignment to a vacant position
• Assistive equipment or ergonomic modifications
• Temporary light duty assignments
• Adjusted job duties that do not eliminate essential functions

Employers are not required to eliminate essential job duties, create a brand new position, or tolerate performance that cannot meet the core requirements of the role even with accommodation. The analysis focuses on whether the employee remains qualified for the job with reasonable support.

The Interactive Process Requirement

California law requires a timely, good faith interactive process once the employer becomes aware of the need for accommodation. This obligation can be triggered by:

• A direct request from the employee
• Medical documentation
• Observable limitations
• Knowledge of a medical condition

The interactive process requires dialogue. Employers must:

• Review the employee’s functional limitations
• Consider possible accommodations
• Discuss feasibility
• Explore alternatives if an initial request is not workable

An employer cannot simply deny a request without discussion. Likewise, an employee must participate in good faith and provide reasonable medical support if requested. Courts frequently examine emails, meeting notes, and timelines to determine whether both sides meaningfully engaged.

Common Failure To Accommodate Scenarios

Failure to accommodate claims often arise in situations such as:

• Terminating an employee shortly after a request for medical leave
• Ignoring written accommodation requests
• Refusing to consider remote work despite feasibility
• Demoting an employee instead of exploring reasonable adjustments
• Imposing rigid attendance policies without individualized assessment
• Firing an employee while on protected medical leave

In many cases, employers assert that the requested accommodation was an undue hardship. Under FEHA, undue hardship requires significant difficulty or expense when considered in light of the employer’s size, resources, and operational needs. Large employers face a higher burden in proving hardship.

Relationship To Other Employment Claims

Failure to accommodate claims often overlap with other employment violations, including:

• Disability discrimination
• Retaliation for requesting accommodation
• Wrongful termination
• Interference with medical leave rights

For example, if an employee requests modified duties and is fired instead of being accommodated, the termination may support both a failure to accommodate claim and a disability discrimination claim. Each cause of action has distinct elements, but they frequently arise from the same factual circumstances.

Proving A Failure To Accommodate Claim

To establish liability under FEHA, an employee generally must show:

• They had a qualifying disability or medical condition
• The employer knew of the condition
• The employee could perform essential job duties with reasonable accommodation
• The employer failed to provide accommodation or engage in the interactive process

Evidence commonly includes:

• Medical certification describing functional limitations
• Written accommodation requests
• Internal emails
• Company policies
• Timing of discipline or termination

Direct evidence of discriminatory intent is not required. Circumstantial evidence and timing often play a central role.

Remedies Available In Failure To Accommodate Cases

Employees who prove a violation may recover:

• Back pay and lost benefits
• Front pay if reinstatement is not feasible
• Emotional distress damages
• Attorney’s fees and costs
• Punitive damages in cases of malice or reckless disregard

Courts may also order equitable relief such as reinstatement or policy changes. Because FEHA includes fee shifting provisions, prevailing employees may recover attorney’s fees, which significantly affects litigation strategy.

Time Limits And Administrative Filing Requirements

Most disability discrimination and failure to accommodate claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act require an employee to first file an administrative complaint with the California Civil Rights Department before filing a lawsuit in court. This step is mandatory for most FEHA based claims.

Filing With The California Civil Rights Department

In general, an employee must file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department within three years of the alleged unlawful act. The clock typically begins to run from the date of:

• The denial of a reasonable accommodation
• The termination of employment
• The final act in a pattern of discriminatory conduct

Once a complaint is filed, the employee may request an immediate right to sue notice or allow the agency to investigate. Many employees elect to obtain a right to sue notice early so they can proceed directly to civil court. After receiving a right to sue notice, the employee generally has one year to file a lawsuit in California state court. Missing either the administrative filing deadline or the one year court filing deadline can permanently bar the claim.

Continuing Violations And Ongoing Conduct

In some situations, the continuing violation doctrine may apply if there is an ongoing pattern of related conduct. For example, repeated refusals to accommodate over time may extend the limitations period if the conduct is sufficiently connected. However, courts apply this doctrine narrowly, and it should not be relied upon without legal analysis. Each denial or adverse action may trigger its own limitations period.

Federal Filing Deadlines

If the claim is also pursued under federal law through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, separate deadlines apply. In California, which is considered a deferral state, the filing period with the EEOC is generally 300 days from the unlawful act. Federal and state deadlines operate independently, and strategic decisions must be made about where and how to file.

Related Claims Under Other Statutes

Failure to accommodate cases may overlap with other legal claims that carry different deadlines, including:

• Labor Code retaliation claims
• Family and Medical Leave Act interference claims
• California Family Rights Act claims
• Wage related claims

Some Labor Code claims may have two or three year statutes of limitation. Claims involving written contracts may have four year limitation periods. These timelines do not replace the FEHA administrative requirement. Because multiple causes of action often arise from the same facts, careful review of all potential deadlines is essential.

Why Acting Promptly Matters

Employment cases are highly dependent on documentation and witness testimony. Delays can result in:

• Lost or deleted emails
• Faded memories
• Departed supervisors or coworkers
• Expired statutory deadlines

Even if the filing deadline has not passed, waiting can weaken the strength of the case. Prompt legal evaluation ensures that administrative prerequisites are satisfied and that all viable claims are preserved within the required time frames.

When To Consult A Failure To Accommodate Lawyer

You should consider consulting counsel if:

• Your employer denies your accommodation request without discussion
• You are disciplined after requesting accommodation
• You are terminated while seeking medical adjustments
• The employer demands medical information unrelated to your limitations
• You believe the interactive process was handled in bad faith

These cases require detailed factual analysis. An experienced employment attorney evaluates whether the accommodation was reasonable, whether the employer properly engaged, and whether other legal claims may exist.

Failure to accommodate disputes often involve nuanced legal standards, medical documentation issues, and employer defenses based on hardship or essential job functions. Careful review of the record is essential before determining the strength of a claim.