Disability Discrimination: How Employers Frequently Blow It With Accommodations

Introduction

One of the most complicated and misunderstood concepts in California disability discrimination law arises from the intersection of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and California’s Workers’ Compensation law. Both laws generally cover conditions that can be described as “disabilities.” However, there are important distinctions that are often confused, misunderstood, and improperly applied. This blog post aims to clarify the interaction between California’s disability accommodation law under the FEHA and Workers’ Compensation law. It highlights the importance of experienced legal analysis in protecting employee rights and prevent workplace disability discrimination.

Workers’ Compensation Law vs. Fair Employment and Housing Act: Misunderstanding It Can Lead to Disability Discrimination

California’s Workers’ Compensation law provides monetary and other benefits for employees who suffer an injury at work, referred to as an “industrial injury.” As long as the injury occurred at work or resulted from work performed for the employer, California’s Workers’ Compensation law provides benefits regardless of fault. It does not matter if an injury is due to carelessness on the part of the employee, as long as the injury is “work-related.” Consequently, workers’ compensation is a “no-fault” system that provides benefits for all industrial injuries.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits employment discrimination, including disability discrimination, and harassment based on various “protected characteristics,” including an employee’s mental or physical disability. Unlike workers’ compensation, the FEHA is not limited to disabilities that are “work-related.” Instead, the FEHA protects employees with a disability regardless of the source or nature of the disability, including pre-existing and temporary disabilities.

Although both the FEHA and Workers’ Compensation provide benefits to California employees, the nature of the benefits is different. Workers’ compensation benefits may include medical treatment, wage replacement, and disability payments. On the other hand, benefits under the FEHA do not include express monetary benefits. Instead, the FEHA requires an employer to provide a “reasonable accommodation” for a disabled employee, which may include modified work schedules, assistive technology, or other changes to the work environment.

The Primary Difference between Workers’ Compensation Law and the Fair Employment and Housing Act

Both the FEHA and California’s workers’ compensation prohibit an employer from terminating an employee because of the employee’s disability, because the employee requested or needed a reasonable accommodation, or because the employee filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. However, unlike workers’ compensation, which absolutely prohibits an employer from terminating an employee because the employee filed a claim for benefits, the FEHA’s prohibition on termination is not as comprehensive. The FEHA only protects disabled employees who can perform the “essential functions” of their position with or without a reasonable accommodation. This means an employee who is completely unable to work due to the severity of their disability may lawfully be terminated, even if the disability resulted from a workplace injury.

Most Employers Do Not Understand This Important Distinction

A common problem California employers face is the mistaken assumption that full compliance with workers’ compensation requirements means full compliance with California employment law. For example, employers often assume that because a workers’ compensation claim is denied, the employee is “not disabled” and not entitled to any reasonable accommodation under the FEHA. This assumption is incorrect, as the determination of the workers’ compensation claim is irrelevant to the employer’s obligation under the FEHA.

Similarly, employers often mistakenly believe that once an employee is determined to be “permanent and stationary” under workers’ compensation, the employer is no longer required to provide any reasonable accommodation and can terminate the employee if they cannot perform their job’s essential functions. However, this is incorrect because the FEHA requires an employer to consider all reasonable accommodations for a disabled employee, including a leave of absence if needed, regardless of the outcome of the employee’s workers’ compensation claim.

Was the Employee Able to Perform the Essential Functions of the Job?