8 California Employment Law Disability Discrimination Cases That Won $$$
Legally reviewed by: Jessica Anvar Stotz, JD, MBA
Microsoft v. California Civil Rights Department (2024)
Facts
The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) alleged that Microsoft discriminated against employees who took protected leave, including disability and parental leave.
Workers who utilized their leave rights reportedly faced retaliation, such as reduced bonuses, lower performance evaluations, and stalled career advancement opportunities.
The CRD’s investigation suggested these practices disproportionately affected women and employees with disabilities.
Legal Standards Applied
- California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- California Family Rights Act (CFRA)
- Retaliation and discrimination standards under state and federal law
Outcome
Microsoft agreed to a $14.4 million settlement, with $14.2 million allocated to affected workers. The company also committed to policy changes, including:
- Hiring an independent consultant to review and revise personnel policies
- Mandating anti-discrimination training for managers and HR staff
- Implementing compliance monitoring and reporting to prevent future violations
Key Takeaway
Employers must ensure that taking protected leave does not result in adverse employment actions. Discrimination against employees for using legally protected leave can lead to substantial legal and financial consequences
2. Esparza v. Esparza Enterprises (2022)
Facts
Esparza Enterprises, a farm labor contractor in Bakersfield, was involved in a disability discrimination case. An employee filed a complaint after the company denied her requested accommodations for a disability stemming from a workplace injury.
The company terminated her due to the disability-related issue, which was a temporary disability. The case also involved other employees who experienced similar issues with accommodation requests being ignored.
Legal Standards Applied
- California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
- Reasonable accommodation requirements
- Interactive process obligations under FEHA
Outcome
Esparza Enterprises settled the case for $600,000. The company also agreed to modify its accommodation policies, ensuring compliance with California’s disability laws.
Additionally, they committed to paying up to $550,000 to compensate affected employees and provide training for supervisors.
Key Takeaway
- Employers must uphold the reasonable accommodation process and avoid discrimination based on perceived or actual disabilities.
- Companies should also ensure that accommodation requests are handled appropriately, particularly when employees are affected by temporary disabilities
3. Zamora v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (2021)
Facts
David Zamora, a security officer employed by Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (SIS), filed a lawsuit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Zamora, who had a physical disability, requested reasonable accommodations, which the company failed to provide. He was terminated without an adequate interactive process to explore reasonable alternatives, including reassignment to another role.
Legal Standards Applied
- FEHA protections against disability discrimination
- Employer’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodation
- Interactive process requirements to engage with employees requesting accommodations
Outcome
The California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Zamora, allowing his claims for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate to proceed. The court clarified that employers must consider reasonable accommodations, including reassignment, before terminating a disabled employee.
Key Takeaway
Employers in California must engage in the interactive process and assess reasonable accommodations before taking adverse actions against employees with disabilities. Failure to do so can result in liability under FEHA.
4. Hernandez v. Rancho Santiago Community College District (2018)
Facts
- Maria Hernandez worked as an administrative assistant and was on a one-year probationary period.
- She took temporary disability leave for surgery eight months into her probation.
- The college terminated her while she was still on leave, rather than extending her probationary period to account for the time she was away.
Legal Standards Applied
- FEHA reasonable accommodation requirements.
- Employer obligations under the interactive process.
- Whether providing medical leave that leads to termination is a reasonable accommodation.
Outcome
- The trial court ruled in Hernandez’s favor, awarding $723,746 in damages.
- The California Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the district could have accommodated her by extending her probationary period rather than terminating her.
Key Takeaway
Providing medical leave is not a reasonable accommodation if it leads directly to termination. Employers must engage in an interactive process to explore accommodations, including extending probationary periods when reasonable.
5. Atkins v. City of Los Angeles (2017)
Facts of the Case
- Five LAPD recruits were injured during police academy training and were placed in a light-duty program called the “Recycle Program,” which had previously allowed injured recruits to work desk jobs until they fully recovered or were deemed permanently disabled.
- The City of Los Angeles changed its policy, limiting participation in the program to six months. The recruits, still recovering, were told they had to obtain medical clearance to return to full training or be terminated.
- When they could not return, they were dismissed and sued for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process.
Legal Standards Applied
- The recruits argued violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which requires reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.
- The City argued that the recruits were not “qualified individuals” under FEHA because they could not perform the essential functions of a police recruit position, even with accommodations.
Outcome
- The jury initially awarded the recruits $12 million in damages.
- The California Court of Appeal ruled that the recruits were not “qualified individuals” for the purposes of their discrimination claim, as they could not perform the essential duties of a police recruit.
- However, the court affirmed their claim for failure to accommodate because the City had previously allowed indefinite participation in the Recycle Program but retroactively applied its policy change, cutting their participation short.
- The court also reversed the damages award as “unreasonably speculative” because it assumed the recruits would have completed training, passed probation, and had long police careers. A new trial was ordered on that issue.
Key Takeaway
- Employers cannot retroactively apply policy changes that disadvantage employees with disabilities if the prior policy allowed for longer accommodations.
- Even if an employee is not “qualified” for their original role, they may still be entitled to reassignment under FEHA as a reasonable accommodation, provided a suitable position is available.
- Damages must be based on reasonable projections—speculative future earnings are unlikely to hold up on appeal.
6. Wallace v. County of Stanislaus (2016)
Facts
- Dennis Wallace, a deputy sheriff, had a history of work-related injuries and underwent multiple surgeries.
- After a fitness-for-duty exam, a doctor listed several physical restrictions.
- The county misinterpreted the medical report, believing Wallace was completely unable to perform his job, and placed him on unpaid leave.
- Wallace sued, claiming disability discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Legal Standards Applied
- “Regarded as” disability discrimination under FEHA.
- Employer’s misinterpretation of medical restrictions as a basis for adverse action.
- Whether discriminatory intent is necessary for a finding of liability.
Outcome
- The California Court of Appeal ruled that Wallace did not need to prove the county acted with ill will to establish discrimination.
- The court overturned a trial court ruling that had required proof of intentional discrimination.
- Wallace was awarded $436,000 in damages.
Key Takeaway
Employers can be held liable for disability discrimination even if they act in good faith but mistakenly interpret an employee’s condition. A misjudgment about an employee’s ability to work does not exempt an employer from liability under FEHA
7. Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009)
Facts
- Plaintiff Scotch was diagnosed with Bell’s palsy, which affected his ability to speak clearly
- He requested accommodation to teach fewer classes temporarily
- The Art Institute terminated him shortly after his diagnosis
- Employer claimed the termination was part of a general reduction in force
Legal Standards Applied
- FEHA reasonable accommodation requirements
- Suspicious timing between disability disclosure and termination
- Pretext analysis under California discrimination law
Outcome
- $6.9 million total verdict ($2.9 million in compensatory damages, $4 million in punitive damages)
- Jury found the Art Institute had engaged in disability discrimination
- Court determined the employer failed to engage in good faith interactive process
Key Takeaway
Employers must have strong documentation when terminating employees with disabilities during layoffs; suspicious timing can lead to substantial verdicts.
8. A.M. v. Albertsons, LLC (2009)
Facts
- A grocery store cashier with a medical condition that required frequent restroom use had an accommodation allowing her to take breaks as needed.
- On one occasion, a supervisor repeatedly denied her restroom requests, causing her to urinate on herself at the register.
- She suffered severe humiliation and emotional distress, leading her to sue for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under California law.
Legal Standards Applied
- Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): Requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.
- Reasonable Accommodation Duty: Employers must engage in the interactive process and cannot arbitrarily revoke accommodations.
- Failure to Accommodate: Even a single instance of failing to provide a reasonable accommodation can be actionable.
Outcome
- Jury awarded $200,000 in damages.
- The California Court of Appeal upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the employer’s failure to accommodate, even for one incident, was a violation of FEHA.
Key Takeaway
Employers must honor established accommodations and cannot deny them at their discretion. Even one failure to accommodate can result in significant legal liability
Think You Might Be Experiencing Disability Discrimination?
If you believe you are experiencing disability discrimination, contact LawLinq to get a free consultation. We work with some of the best disability discrimination attorneys in the state that want to help people like you pursue justice.
