FREE CONSULTATIONS:

888.465.5110

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

Postmates pays $8.75 million to settle worker misclassification lawsuit

California courts have been dealing with a growing number of worker misclassification cases that have resulted from the expansion of the gig economy. In one such lawsuit, a federal judge recently approved…

READ ARTICLE

Misclassified property workers awarded $2 million in overtime lawsuit

A recent case serves as an important reminder about the protections that California labor laws provide to workers. Employers can be liable if they misclassify their workers and fail to comply with…

READ ARTICLE
Venture capital firm co-founder resigns amid sexual harassment scandal

Venture capital firm co-founder resigns amid sexual harassment scandal

Silicon Valley has recently been hit by a series of complaints about inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Not long ago, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick stepped down amid allegations of sexual harassment within…

READ ARTICLE
San Francisco attorney wins $2 million in whistleblower lawsuit against city

San Francisco attorney wins $2 million in whistleblower lawsuit against city

A former deputy city attorney won a wrongful termination and whistleblower lawsuit against the city of San Francisco. The San Francisco Superior Court jury awarded Joanna Hoeper over $2 million for lost…

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