March 31, 2025

Can I Sue My California Employer for Not Accommodating My Disability?

Legally reviewed by: Jessica Anvar Stotz, JD, MBA

Short answer: In California, an employee with a disability can sue their employer for failing to provide reasonable accommodations. 

This generally happens if the employer knew about the disability, could have reasonably accommodated it without undue hardship, and refused to do so, violating both the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

When You Can Sue for Lack of Disability Accommodation in California

You can generally sue your employer for failing to accommodate your disability when:

1. You have a qualifying disability that your employer knows about
2. You requested a reasonable accommodation
3. The accommodation wouldn’t cause undue hardship to the business
4. Your employer refused to provide the accommodation or engage in the interactive process

For example, if you have documented chronic back pain and requested an ergonomic chair that costs $300, but your employer flatly refused without discussing alternatives, you likely have grounds for a lawsuit.

When You Generally Cannot Sue for Disability Accommodation

You generally cannot sue your employer for failing to accommodate your disability when:

1. Your condition doesn’t qualify as a disability under California law
2. You never informed your employer of your disability or requested accommodation
3. The requested accommodation would cause genuine undue hardship (significant expense or disruption)
4. Your employer offered a reasonable alternative accommodation that you rejected

For example, if you requested a completely private office due to mild anxiety but your company has an open floor plan for all employees and offered you noise-canceling headphones instead, you likely wouldn’t have grounds for a successful lawsuit if you rejected this reasonable alternative.

How California has Broader Protections Compared to Federal Regulations and Other States

California law provides broader protections than the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in several significant ways:

1. More inclusive definition of disability: California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) defines “disability” more liberally than the ADA. While the ADA requires that a condition “substantially limit” a major life activity, FEHA only requires that it “limit” a major life activity—a lower threshold that covers more conditions.
2. Covers smaller employers: The ADA applies only to employers with 15 or more employees, while FEHA applies to those with 5 or more employees, extending protections to workers at smaller businesses.
3. Greater burden on employers: California places a heavier burden on employers to prove that an accommodation would cause undue hardship. Under FEHA, the employer must demonstrate the accommodation would require “significant difficulty or expense,” which is interpreted more strictly than under federal law.
4. Broader range of medical conditions covered: FEHA explicitly covers conditions like HIV/AIDS and recognizes temporary disabilities that might not qualify under the ADA.
5. Greater damages available: California allows for unlimited compensatory and punitive damages in successful cases, while the ADA caps damages based on employer size.
6. More favorable standard for reasonable accommodation: California courts have generally been more expansive in what they consider “reasonable” accommodations compared to federal courts applying the ADA.

This broader protection means that many disability accommodation cases have a better chance of success when brought under California law rather than solely under federal law.

How Courts Might Define “Undue Hardship”

Factors Courts Consider When Determining Undue Hardship

California courts and administrative agencies evaluate several key factors when determining whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on an employer:

1. Cost of the accommodation relative to the employer’s financial resources
2. Nature and structure of the business operation
3. Impact on the operation of the facility, including effects on other employees and ability to conduct business
4. Type of operation, including composition and structure of the workforce
5. Geographic separateness or administrative relationship of the facility to the employer
6. Safety considerations for the employee with a disability and others
7. Disruption level the accommodation would create

How Company Size and Resources Affect This Determination

The undue hardship standard is intentionally scaled to the employer’s size and financial capacity:

• Large corporations face a higher threshold to prove undue hardship, as they typically have greater financial resources, more facility options, and more flexible staffing
• Small businesses may more easily demonstrate undue hardship for costly accommodations, though they aren’t exempt from the obligation to seek reasonable solutions
• Financial health of the company is considered—a financially struggling company might successfully argue that certain accommodations create undue hardship
• Available tax credits and deductions for accommodations may be considered by courts when evaluating an employer’s hardship claim

Relevant Case Precedents

Several California cases have helped define the boundaries of undue hardship:

• Atkins v. City of Los Angeles (2017): Established that employers must consider reassignment to vacant positions before claiming undue hardship
• Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015): Found that an essential job function cannot be eliminated as an accommodation without creating undue hardship
• Dunlap v. Liberty Natural Products, Inc. (2019): Determined that multiple leaves of absence can create undue hardship if they significantly impact business operations
• Raine v. City of Burbank (2006): Recognized that creating a new position to accommodate an employee would constitute undue hardship
• Wallace v. County of Stanislaus (2016): Clarified that employers bear the burden of proving undue hardship, not employees

These precedents demonstrate that undue hardship determinations are highly fact-specific and depend heavily on the particular circumstances of each case, with courts generally requiring employers to show they made genuine efforts to accommodate before claiming hardship.

Damages and Remedies

Types of Compensation Available

Employees who successfully prove that their employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations for their disability in California may be entitled to various forms of compensation:

Economic Damages

• Back Pay: Wages, benefits, and other compensation lost from the date of the violation until the resolution of the case. This includes salary increases, bonuses, and benefits the employee would have received.
• Front Pay: Future wages and benefits awarded when reinstatement isn’t feasible or appropriate. Courts calculate this based on factors like the employee’s work life expectancy and potential future earnings.
• Out-of-pocket Expenses: Costs directly related to the accommodation denial, such as medical expenses, costs of seeking alternative employment, or expenses incurred attempting to accommodate oneself.

Non-Economic Damages

• Emotional Distress: Compensation for psychological harm suffered, including anxiety, depression, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. California places no statutory cap on these damages, unlike federal law.
• Pain and Suffering: Compensation for physical discomfort and emotional trauma resulting from the employer’s failure to accommodate.

Punitive Damages in Egregious Cases

When an employer’s conduct is particularly reprehensible, California law permits punitive damages:

• Requirements for Award: The plaintiff must prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that the employer acted with “malice, oppression, or fraud.”
• Malice: Defined as conduct intended to cause injury or despicable conduct carried out with willful and conscious disregard for rights or safety of others.
• No Statutory Cap: Unlike federal law, California doesn’t cap punitive damages, though constitutional limitations require reasonable proportionality to compensatory damages.
• Corporate Responsibility: For punitive damages against a company, the plaintiff must show that a managing agent or officer participated in, authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct.

Notable Cases

• In Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009), the California Supreme Court upheld punitive damages (though reduced) in a disability discrimination case where a supervisor engaged in harassment.
• Prue v. Brady Co. (2015) awarded substantial punitive damages when an employer abruptly terminated an employee immediately after disability accommodation discussions.

Retaliation Protections

Laws Protecting Employees Who Request Accommodations

California offers robust legal protections against retaliation for employees who request reasonable accommodations:

• California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): Explicitly prohibits retaliation against employees who request reasonable accommodations, participate in the interactive process, or file complaints related to disability discrimination.
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): The federal ADA contains anti-retaliation provisions that protect employees who exercise their rights under the law.
• California Labor Code Section 1102.5: Provides whistleblower protections that may apply when employees report or oppose disability accommodation violations.
• Lower Burden of Proof: Retaliation claims often have a lower burden of proof than discrimination claims, requiring only that the protected activity was a “substantial motivating factor” in the adverse employment action.
• Extended Statute of Limitations: Under California law, employees generally have three years to file retaliation claims, compared to the standard one-year limitation for many other employment claims.

How to Recognize Retaliatory Actions

Retaliation can take many forms beyond obvious termination. Courts recognize various adverse employment actions that may constitute retaliation:

Common Forms of Retaliation:

• Termination or demotion shortly after requesting accommodations
• Reduction in hours or pay without legitimate business justification
• Negative performance reviews that deviate from prior evaluations
• Transfer to less desirable positions or shifts
• Increased scrutiny or micromanagement compared to other employees
• Exclusion from meetings, training, or advancement opportunities
• Creation of a hostile work environment through isolation or harassment
• Sudden changes in job duties or unreasonable performance expectations
• Denial of previously approved benefits or privileges enjoyed by other employees

Warning Signs of Potential Retaliation:

• Timing that closely follows the accommodation request
• Inconsistent enforcement of policies or procedures
• Shifting explanations for employment decisions
• Deviation from established company protocols
• Comments showing animus toward the disability or accommodation

Additional Claims That Can Be Brought Alongside Accommodation Claims

Strategic plaintiffs often include multiple related claims to strengthen their cases:

Common Companion Claims:

• Disability Discrimination: Failure to accommodate often supports a broader discrimination claim under FEHA and the ADA.
• Hostile Work Environment: When managers or coworkers engage in severe or pervasive harassment related to the disability or accommodation request.
• Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy: When termination violates the fundamental public policy favoring reasonable accommodation.
• Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process: A standalone claim under California law, even if the ultimate accommodation might have been denied.
• Medical Leave Violations: Under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) or Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) if the disability required protected leave.
• Invasion of Privacy: When employers improperly disclose disability information or demand excessive medical documentation.
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: In cases involving particularly outrageous employer conduct.

Strategic Benefits of Multiple Claims:

• Different statutes may provide different remedies or damage provisions
• Varying burdens of proof create multiple paths to recovery
• Broader discovery opportunities to uncover evidence of wrongdoing
• Pressure on employers to settle rather than litigate multiple claims
• Protection against summary judgment if some claims survive while others don’t

By pursuing retaliation claims alongside accommodation claims, employees can substantially strengthen their legal position and potentially increase their recovery.

Have Questions About Your Potential Case?

If you believe you are experiencing disability discrimination contact LawLinq today to get a free consultation. We work with some of the best disability discrimination attorneys in the state and they’re ready to help you pursue justice.