disability discrimination lawyer

Mocking of Disabled Workers Can Be Evidence in California Employment Disability Discrimination Claim

March 30, 2023 | by Nassiri Law

When people in a workplace feel comfortable mocking those who are different, those taunts can be used as evidence of harassment in a future California employment disability discrimination claim. Although our interests as Los Angeles employment attorneys are focused on the rights and well-being of the wronged workers, a recent public exchange between the owner of a Twitter and a disabled employee is a prime example for companies of what not to do, encourage, or allow.

As noted by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), federal law holds it is illegal to “harass” a job applicant or employee due to current or past disability – actual or perceived. Harassment can mean offensive remarks about a person’s disability, and it’s characterized by conduct that is so frequent or severe it creates a hostile work environment or results in an adverse employment decision (such as firing or demotion). Harassment can come from a co-worker, supervisor, or even client/customer (when the employer doesn’t intervene).

Disability discrimination harassment can be difficult to prove because it’s often he-said-she-said. There’s no paper trail. But not so for the recent exchange between Twitter owner Elon Musk and a former employee, a 45-year-old Icelandic graphic designer with muscular dystrophy. Continue Reading ›

Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations is a Form of California Disability Discrimination

October 10, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

Workplaces that fail to accommodate a worker’s injury or disability may be rightly sued for California employment discrimination.

As explained by the California Department of General Services’ Office of Human Resources, reasonable accommodation refers to logical adjustments made to a job and/or the work environment that enables a person who is disabled to perform the essential functions of that job. Reasonable accommodations don’t change the essential job functions or create jobs that don’t exist. But they are provided when accommodation is necessary to allow a person who is disabled to perform the essential job functions.

Employers have a responsibility to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process to determine effective reasonable accommodations for employees who are disabled. When they do not, workers can take legal action against them by filing a California employment lawsuit.

That’s what happened in a recent case at a poultry farm in Merced County, Central California. Continue Reading ›

California Disability Discrimination, Retaliation Lawsuit Over Office Chair Settles for $2 Million

May 16, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

California taxpayers are on the hook for more than $2 million after supervisors at the state’s Employment Development Department failed to reasonably accommodate a worker with disabilities and then allegedly retaliated against her.

As our Los Angeles employment disability discrimination lawyers can explain, reasonable accommodations for disabled workers are required under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Employers with more than five workers must provide these accommodations for people to apply for and perform the essential functions of a job, unless doing so would cause the company undue hardship. A reasonable accommodation could be alternative duties, medical leave, altering work schedules, moving one’s work area or providing electrical or mechanical aids – or a special office chair.

It’s illegal in California for an employer to forego engaging in a good faith, timely and interactive process when it comes to reasonable accommodations. The whole point of the law, of course, is to remove the kinds of barriers that would prevent someone from performing a job they could otherwise do with some accommodations. Continue Reading ›

Mental Fitness Tests for Cops Can’t be Used as a Disability Discrimination Cover, Federal Appeals Court Rules

March 30, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

Both California and federal laws protect employees and prospective employees from discrimination on the basis of disability or perceived disability. This was at issue recently in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where a prospective police officer’s job offer was rescinded after a mental fitness test in which he revealed his diagnosis of ADHD.

As the court noted in its precedential decision in Gibbs v. City of Pittsburg, government agencies have the right to ensure their police officers are mentally fit. However, they are not allowed to use psychological testing as a cover for disability discrimination.

Our Los Angeles disability discrimination lawyers can explain that California has some of the best employment law protections for workers with disabilities, actual or perceived. Employers are required to evaluate job applicants regardless of their actual or perceived disabilities. They can require medical or psychological exams – but only if they routinely apply them for all prospective hires.

Police departments do routinely test officer candidates for both physical and mental fitness. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that between 72 percent and 98 percent of police agencies require psychological evaluations of police officer candidates, and many states have statutory and regulatory requirements for psychological testing of public safety job applicants. But it’s imperative that they follow the letter of the law when doing so. Continue Reading ›

Ninth Circuit Reinstates FMLA, Disability Discrimination Claim

December 21, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

Going up against a large employer when you’ve been discriminated against can be daunting, especially when your condition arises from a work-related injury. An experienced Los Angeles employment lawyer can help guide you through the process of seeking justice and fair compensation.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which has jurisdiction over California) reinstated an FMLA and disability discrimination lawsuit filed by a Nevada woman against a large box chain retailer employer.

The case of Hazelett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. began with a work injury. Plaintiff worked as an order-filler at one of the store’s distribution centers near her home when she injured her foot on-the-job. She filed for workers’ compensation and later, a leave of absence. During her work-related disability, the store offered her a temporary alternate duty assignment. The form for that assignment indicated that if she refused that assignment, her disability benefits could be suspended or denied due to noncompliance. However, the reassignment they offered was a far distance from her home and required her to work into the wee hours of the morning. Meanwhile, her work injury was such that she could not drive. No public transportation would be available to take her home after her shift, unless she paid for a taxi, which she couldn’t afford. She called out sick each day she was absent, thinking they were excused, as they were all related to her workers’ compensation injury. Yet on the day she filed for leave under the U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act, she was fired for excessive absences.

(FMLA is a federal law allowing up to 12 weeks of protected, unpaid leave in a 12-month period for the birth of a child/placement of adoption, care of a spouse/child/parent who has a serious health condition or a serious health condition rendering employee unable to perform the essential functions of his/her job.)

Employees Win $2M California Disability Discrimination Case Against Nursing Home Chain

February 20, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

A for-profit nursing home chain operating dozens of facilities in several states (including California) has agreed to pay $2 million and implement other corrective measures after being sued for disability discrimination.

Local media report that at the heart of the case were strict hiring and leave policies that unfairly affected those suffering a disability. Like far too many employers, the company seemed to be under the impression that applicants and workers had to be 100 percent capable of performing every job function as-is (without accommodation or restriction), and that employees need not be extended further consideration if they had run out of FMLA and sick leave time. This is not true.

As our Los Angeles disability discrimination lawyers can explain, such policies violate federal law – specifically the Americans with Disabilities Act. Continue Reading ›

Invisible Disabilities and Workplace Discrimination in California

May 11, 2019 | by Nassiri Law

When it comes to disability discrimination in the workplace, many presume it is for the obvious or perceived disabilities – a genetic condition like Down syndrome or a traumatic injury that leaves one scarred or with lower physical capacity. Los Angeles disability discrimination lawyers, however, know that invisible disabilities can affect individuals too.

Workplace discrimination for these conditions usually comes in the form of assumptions of one’s ability based on stigma or the failure to understand why certain conditions require the treatment they do.

Some of the workplace disability cases our employment attorneys have taken on include:

Mild traumatic brain injuries
Attention hyperactivity disorder
Dyslexia
Fibromyalgia
Lupus
High-functioning autism
Multiple sclerosis
Heart problems

Workers with disabilities are protected against workplace discrimination by two primary federal laws: The Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In order to be covered by these protections, workers are required to disclose their disabilities, which we realize can be a tough decision. The truth of the matter is, discrimination often follows disclosure.

Invisible disability can impact both a person’s employment and financial future. Continue Reading ›

EEOC: Drilling Company Committed Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination in Hiring

September 8, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

Age discrimination is prohibited by the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which shields workers 40-and-older from suffering discrimination in any aspect of employment on the basis of older age. Disability discrimination violates the Americans With Disabilities Act, which protects workers from unfavorable treatment due to either a history of disability (i.e., cancer that is in remission or controlled) or a belief that one has a non-transitory physical or mental impairment (whether or not that belief is founded).

Recently, an oil drilling company in Oklahoma was served with a complaint from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging the company violating both the ADEA and the ADA. The company allegedly refused to hire applicants who were either over 40 or who had a history of filing claims for benefits under workers’ compensation insurance.

The EEOC alleges the company used the information gleaned from applications for employment in order to carry out the discrimination. The employment lawsuit also seeks compensation for a specific applicant who was required to undergo a post-offer medical examination. Based on the findings of that examination, the company withdrew its job offer. Both the act of compelling the exam and withdrawing the job offer on the basis of that exam were unlawful, the EEOC asserts. Continue Reading ›

ADA Requires Workers Be Able to Perform Essential Job Functions

February 18, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

The Americans With Disabilities Act requires that workers or applicants not be discriminated against on the basis of a disability, so long as the worker is able to perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable modifications. This is not a blanket requirement that companies accept all workers with disabilities. The caveat that workers must be able to perform essential functions is crucial.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pointed out in a recent opinion, “The reality is there are some jobs that a person with disabilities are simply unable to perform.” That was deemed to be the case for plaintiff in this instance.

According to court records, plaintiff worked for a telecommunications firm in Tennessee at a call center, where her job as a customer service representative involved answering incoming calls and helping customers with billing and technical support problems. In order to answer those calls, plaintiff had to be physically present at her workstation and logged into the computer. She worked eight-hour shifts, and rotated every six months. During these shifts, customer service representatives had to remain at their work stations, except to use the restroom, to take a half-hour lunch and two pre-scheduled 15-minute breaks. There was no requirement for a per-day minimum, but most representatives generally took on 40 to 50 calls per shift. Continue Reading ›

Kowitz v. Trinity Health – Employer’s Duty to Provide Reasonable Accommodation for Workers With Disabilities

October 21, 2016 | by Nassiri Law

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to give qualified persons with disabilities reasonable accommodation for work – unless doing so would create some type of undue hardship. Generally speaking, a reasonable accommodation is an alteration of the work environment or in the way things are usually done that enables someone with a disability to have employment opportunities that are equal.

This could mean:

An adjustment or modification to the job application process;
An adjustment or modification to the manner in which the job is typically performed or the work environment that gives the applicant/ worker a chance to perform the essential functions of the job;
Adjustments or changes that allow the worker with a disability the chance to enjoy equal privileges and benefits of employment, the same as other similarly-situated workers who don’t have a disability.

In order to trigger these rights, workers need to be able to perform the essential functions of the job and they need to request reasonable accommodation. In the recent case of Kowitz v. Trinity Health, the question was whether plaintiff made a request for accommodation that was adequate enough to trigger the interactive process of identifying a reasonable accommodation. Continue Reading ›