disability discrimination attorney

California Disability Discrimination: What is a Reasonable Accommodation

March 25, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

California workers with physical and mental disabilities can request reasonable accommodations if they are necessary to assist them in their daily duties. Our Los Angeles disability discrimination lawyers know, however, that the question of what, exactly, a reasonable accommodation is can be a bit unclear.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) stipulates that in order to ask for a reasonable accommodation, one must meet the definition of having a physical or mental impairment that substantially inhibits one or more major life activities. At the state-level, we have the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the Disabled Persons Act all protect workers from disability-based discrimination.

What are Reasonable Accommodations?

Reasonable accommodations are slight changes that are made – either to the duties of the job or how/when/where/with what it’s performed. Ultimately, the goal is to provide reasonable tools that a qualified, disabled employee needs to complete the essential functions of their job while enjoying equal workplace opportunities. The requested accommodations must be within reason, and not place “undue hardship” on the employer.

Some examples of reasonable accommodations may include: Continue Reading ›

Are Long-Haul COVID Suffers in California Protected Under Employment Disability Laws?

April 25, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

It may be long after the worst waves of the COVID-19 pandemic that some California workers will be left wondering whether their “long-haul” symptoms entitle them to any employment law protections. Our Los Angeles disability discrimination attorneys believe we’re going to see this as the basis for a growing number of California wrongful termination claims in the coming months.

Case-in-point: Last month, a Central California hospital lab employee who is a long-haul COVID-19 sufferer sued her former employer for disability discrimination, retaliation violating medical leave laws and wrongful termination. According to the Fresno Bee, the worker first became sick with coronavirus in April of last year. Her doctor placed her on six weeks medical leave. She came back to work in June, but her symptoms persisted. Combined with her pre-existing conditions (diabetes, cardio-pulmonary disease and traumatic brain injury), she was unable to work for intermittent periods. Her doctor recommended periodic medical leave. However, she said when she asked her boss for the paperwork to file the request, she was reportedly told that “she better not.”

Over months, plaintiff was absent several times due to lingering viral effects. She claims though her absence was due to her medical condition, her employer disciplined and ultimately fired her for violation of the health center’s employee attendance policy.

If her allegations prove true (a spokesperson for the employer would not comment on pending litigation), it’s possible she’ll prevail. California statute grants employees up to three months (12 weeks) of leave in one year for serious medical ailments. Furthermore, it’s unlawful for employers to retaliate against workers for asking for or taking that leave.

As longtime L.A. wrongful termination lawyers, we’re concerned about a potential increase in cases like these. We’d caution employers against disciplining or especially firing workers as a first resort for simply exceeding medical leave – whether it’s for long-haul coronavirus symptoms or some other condition. It may be much more productive for all involved to simply have a conversation about how much more time off is needed.

In the Fresno case, the plaintiff is seeking not only her job back, but also lost wages, special damages and punitive damages.

California Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Yields $4.8M Verdict

December 15, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

A jury in Los Angeles awarded a former police officer in South Pasedena $4.8 million following a two-week trial involving allegations of wrongful termination and disability discrimination.

The Los Angeles Times reported the 18-year veteran on the force was fired for alleged dishonesty, but jurors agreed with him that the true reason was his diagnosis of attention-deficit/ hyperactive disorder (ADHD). The former chief of police (who retired prior to plaintiff’s termination) described plaintiff not only as a good man, but as the “best” on the force when it came to community policing. However, the chief said the city refused to allow plaintiff reasonable accommodations when it came to the challenges he faced when writing reports due to his condition. The former top cop also testified his replacement in that role was supportive of the recommendation made by a captain on the force who had been campaigning to have plaintiff fired.

The California Department of Fair Housing and Employment states in 2CCR Section 11065 that the term “disability” as it relates to employees is intended to be broadly construed, and can mean mental disabilities (including conditions like autism spectrum disorders, bipolar disorders and PTSD), physical disabilities that limit major life activities or impact one or more major body systems. It can also mean conditions like blindness, deafness, partially or wholly missing limbs, mobility impairments, HIV/AIDS, epilepsy, diabetes and other conditions. The list isn’t meant to be exhaustive, but but it does exclude conditions like substance abuse disorders, gambling, sexual behavior disorders or mild conditions like sprains, strains, the flue, etc. One can also be protected from having “perceived disability,” meaning the worker is regarded or treated as having a mental or physical condition or adverse genetic information.

As our disability discrimination attorneys know, state law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to workers or applicants who have a disability, unless doing so would result in an “undue hardship” – either expense or significant difficulty – for the employer. Continue Reading ›

Down Syndrome Discrimination Alleged Against Chain Retailer

January 22, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

The nation’s largest chain retailer is facing a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a former employee with Down syndrome, who had worked for the company for 15 years prior.

Of course, disability discrimination isn’t limited to those who have this diagnosis, but it is one of the more visible conditions. Most people can tell right away when someone has the condition, and it’s often used as a basis to deny employment or refuse advancement opportunities – even in cases where the individual is qualified for the essential functions of the job. In fact, employment discrimination of people with Down syndrome was common until fairly recently. Much of these discriminatory actions are based on misinformation and prejudice.

Down syndrome is a genetic chromosome 21 disorder that causes a wide range of developmental delays and disabilities. Those who have Down syndrome share a distinct facial appearance, and generally all have some level of intellectual disability and developmental delays. They may also suffer from thyroid or heart disease. But again, it is a range. Although some with Down syndrome suffer profound disabilities, others are more than capable to work and live independently. Companies that discriminate against these workers solely on the basis of their condition can face legal consequences, including a court order to pay both compensatory and punitive damages. Continue Reading ›

Disability Discrimination Case Settled for $75K by Wal-Mart

January 8, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

Retail giant Wal-Mart has agreed to pay $75,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit that was filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after the company allegedly broke federal discrimination laws in its treatment of a worker who had survived cancer.

According to the EEOC, the worker was employed at a store in Illinois. After successfully undergoing treatment for cancer, she suffered some limitations that required accommodation at work. However, the retail company is accused of not extending her those accommodations and further not addressing harassment against her. In order to continue working, plaintiff needed a modified schedule and a chair. Management worked out a modified schedule fora time, but later revoked it without stating why. The store also refused to provide a chair in plaintiff’s work area, explaining she would have to be responsible for hauling the chair over from the furniture department to the area where she worked – a task that was next to impossible given her physical limitations. On top of this, plaintiff endured cruel remarks from a co-worker who went unpunished after calling her names like, “chemo brain” and, “cripple.”

This kind of alleged conduct is a clear violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which strictly bars discrimination against workers based on their disability. Discrimination can include the denial of a reasonable workplace accommodation to the employee. It can also mean subjecting them to a work environment that is hostile. Continue Reading ›

Jobs Suitable for Persons With Autism

May 15, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Despite the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other state and federal anti-discrimination employment laws, it still remains difficult for people diagnosed with autism and other intellectual disabilities to obtain employment, and, if they do, to keep their jobs.

A recent news feature from the San Francisco Gate looks at what jobs people with autism can not only do, but also can excel at. This article was written after author attended a workshop for people living with autism and their family members.

One of the main questions asked by the audience is what kinds of jobs have people with autism been successful at in the past. The answer to this question, according to the speaker, depends on how a particular person with autism learns. She describes people with autism as learning either as a visual thinker, a pattern thinker, or a word fact thinker. Continue Reading ›