California Employment Law Refresher: Reasonable Accommodations for Employees Who Are Associated with Persons Who Have a Disability
California law prevents discrimination against employees (and applicants) based on their association with another person who is, or is perceived to be, disabled. California law also requires employers to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations for employees with known disabilities. This week’s legal update discusses whether those obligations extend to employees who are not themselves disabled but are associated with persons who are disabled.
California Employment Law Refresher: Reasonable Accommodation and Interactive Process Obligations with Focus on Remote/Hybrid Work
California and federal law require employers to engage in the interactive process to discuss reasonable accommodations that will enable qualified individuals with disabilities to perform a position’s essential job functions. One potential option, which may or may not be a reasonable accommodation depending upon the circumstances, involves remote or hybrid work. This week’s legal update provides a refresher regarding employer and employee obligations in the interactive process with a focus on remote and hybrid work as a potential reasonable accommodation.
California Court Clarifies When Employers Have Knowledge of an Employee’s Disability for Purposes of the Fair Employment and Housing Act
California law prohibits discrimination in the workplace vis-à-vis an employee’s “known” disability. A California appellate court recently clarified the standards that apply in the context of disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to reasonably accommodate where an employee engages in conduct that might be the result of a mental disability, but could be the result of other factors, and the employee has not disclosed the existence of a disability.
California Civil Rights Department Publishes Religious Discrimination and Accommodations Fact Sheet and Ninth Circuit Addresses Undue Hardship Defense in Context of COVID-19 Vaccines
Both California and federal laws prohibit religious discrimination and require reasonable accommodations unless doing so would create an undue hardship. This week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the undue hardship defense under federal law in the context of COVID-19 vaccines. In addition, the California Civil Rights Department published a Fact Sheet to assist employers in understanding their obligations and ensure compliance regarding religious discrimination and accommodations under California law.
California Court Confirms Unpaid Interns Have Standing to Pursue Claims Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Even When Doing So as Part of a School Program
Many entities operate intern programs. Some, particularly educational institutions, do so without pay. Because of the potential risk of claims for unpaid wages and penalties, employers should always consult with legal counsel before engaging the services of anyone, even interns, without pay to ensure compliance with local, state, and federal wage and hour laws. However, a recent appellate court decision highlights another issue for consideration when engaging interns, specifically, potential liability for harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation. Attempting to “provide needed clarity,” the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District confirmed that unpaid interns have standing to pursue such claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and that they maintain standing even when part of a school program and even when working offsite if the entity offering the internship supervises and/or controls the intern’s work.
California Appellate Court Rules That, Although Coworker’s Off-Duty Conduct Was Not Imputable to Employer, Employer’s Response to Complaint May Establish a Cognizable Claim for Harassment
Last month, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District held that, although the employer was not liable for harassment based on a coworker’s off-duty conduct unrelated to work, the employee nevertheless stated a cognizable claim against the employer—and could proceed with litigation on both the harassment and failure to prevent harassment claims—based on its response to the employee’s harassment complaint.
2025 Legislative Amendments Related to Time Off for Jury Duty, Court Appearances, and Victim-Involved Activities
New legislation impacts employee rights and employer obligations regarding jury duty, court appearances, and victim-involved time off.