NO FEE UNLESS YOU WIN

What is an Undue Hardship When Considering a Reasonable Accommodation for an Employee’s Disability?

A concept in workplace disability accommodation situations is the idea of “undue hardship” which an employer asserts to avoid having to provide a reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee. California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA) and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) both require employers to make a reasonable accommodation for disabled employees. A defense to any reasonable accommodation is that it will cause an “undue hardship” to the employers’ operations or running its business. And like all defenses, the employer has the burden of proving and establishing that the employees’ requested accommodation would be unduly difficult.

The undue hardship defense though is a higher bar than one might assume. It does not mean merely inconvenient or burdensome for the employer. The FEHA definition and its interpretative regulations state that the accommodation must be a “significant” difficulty or expense when considering several factors: (1) the cost of the accommodation, (2) the financial resources, number of employees, and the effect of the accommodation on the employer, (3) the type of operations of the employer, and (4) the relationship between the employer’s facilities.

In a 2008 California Supreme Court decision, Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, the court majority held that an employee could not sue his prospective employer for refusing to allow the employee to use doctor-prescribed medical marijuana while off-duty to treat his long-term back problems. The majority basically found that employers are not obligated to accommodate the use of off-duty drugs.

However, in dissent, the justices noted that a reasonable accommodation includes changing the employer’s policies – such as the no drug use policy. The employer had presented no evidence “to substantiate its claim that accommodating plaintiff’s doctor-recommended use of marijuana would necessarily or likely have substantial adverse effects on its business operations. In the absence of such evidence, there is no basis for the majority to conclude that accommodating plaintiff’s doctor-approved marijuana use would be unreasonable within the meaning of the FEHA.”

Given the high burden to establish the undue hardship defense, most employer’s opt to challenge the reasonableness of the accommodation first. For employees, it’s always a good idea to keep in mind the reasonableness of any requested accommodation.

Read more

San Francisco unpaid wage lawyer

Starbucks must pay workers for off-the-clock tasks, says Supreme Court

A landmark court ruling in a wage theft case against Starbucks could signal changes for employers throughout California. Starbucks can no longer avoid paying employees for time spent on performing tasks outside...

READ ARTICLE
San Francisco unpaid wage attorney

Cheesecake Factory owes janitors $4.6 million in wage theft case

Large companies that use contracting and subcontracting sometimes do so in an attempt to avoid responsibility for ensuring their workers are paid proper wages. According to California Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su,...

READ ARTICLE
san francisco unpaid wage lawyer

La Taqueria fined $600,000 for wage violations as workers win key workplace changes

San Francisco eatery La Taqueria has enjoyed immense popularity, even appearing on The San Francisco Chronicle’s annual Top 100 restaurants list. However, the 45-year-old restaurant has received negative publicity lately due to...

READ ARTICLE
sexual harassment lawyer

State audit criticizes University of California’s handling of sexual misconduct claims

The University of California (UC) needs to improve its handling of sexual harassment complaints, according to a recent state audit. The report revealed persistent issues such as delayed investigations and inconsistencies in...

READ ARTICLE
SEEN ON
bloomberg
sfgate
kpix
cnnmoney
marin-ij
dailypost
news10