46 California opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 17 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bankgreen2 sentences2025The Trial Court Erred in Granting the Motion for Summary Adjudication on Montes’s Causes of Action for Failure To Provide Reasonable Accommodations and Failure To Engage in an Interactive Process Section 12940, subdivision (m)(1), makes it an unlawful employment practice to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability” of an employee. “‘The essential elements of a failure to accommodate claim are: 16 (1) the plaintiff has a disability covered by the FEHA; (2) the plaintiff is a qualified individual (i.e., he or she can perform the essential functions of th 2017To satisfy this initial burden in an employment discrimination case, a defendant employer must either undermine an element of the plaintiff's prima facie case-by affirmatively negating it or showing the plaintiff cannot prove it-or provide a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. ( Id. at pp. 965-966, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 553 ; see Aguilar, supra , 25 Cal.4th at pp. 853-854, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 .) In addition to making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of disability, the FEHA makes it unlawful "to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the know | 8 | 12 |
Wilson v. County of Orangegreen2 sentences2026Section 12940, subdivision (m), makes it an unlawful practice to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an . . . employee.” The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are: “(1) the plaintiff has a disability covered by the FEHA; (2) the plaintiff is a qualified individual (i.e., he or she can perform the essential functions of the position); and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff’s disability.” (Wilson v. County of Orange (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1192 .) A finite leave of absence may be a reasonable accommodati 2025Failure to accommodate disability (seventh cause of action) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are ‘(1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of his position, and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff’s disability.’” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954, 969 ; accord, Wilson v. County of Orange (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1192 .) “[A]n employer who knows of the disability of an employee has an affirmative duty” to offer a reasonable accommodation. | 5 | 14 |
Scotch v. Art Institute of California-Orange County, Inc.green2 sentences2025“While a claim of failure to accommodate is independent of a cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive dialogue, each necessarily implicates the other.” (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54 (Gelfo).) It is unlawful for employers to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an . . . employee.” (§ 12940, subd. (m).) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the emp 2025“While a claim of failure to accommodate is independent of a cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive dialogue, each necessarily implicates the other.” (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54 (Gelfo).) It is unlawful for employers to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an . . . employee.” (§ 12940, subd. (m).) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the emp | 4 | 13 |
Furtado v. State Personnel Boardgreen2 sentences2017(See Hastings v. Department of Corrections (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 963, 971 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 329 ] (Hastings) [to establish a FEHA claim for discrimination “the plaintiff must prove he is qualified for the position for which an accommodation is sought,” not for another position requested as a reassignment]; see also Furtado, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 [distinguishing in the context of a failure to accommodate claim between the showing FEHA requires of “those seeking a position and those already in the position”].) The question whether plaintiffs could perform the essential functions of a p 2017(See Hastings v. Department of Corrections (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 963, 971 [to establish a FEHA claim for discrimination “the plaintiff must prove he is qualified for the position for which an accommodation is sought,” not for another position requested as a reassignment]; see also Furtado, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 [distinguishing in the context of a failure to accommodate claim between the showing FEHA requires of “those seeking a position and those already in the position”].) The question whether the plaintiffs could perform the essential functions of a position to which they sought | 4 | 5 |
Raine v. City of Burbankgreen2 sentences2025“While a claim of failure to accommodate is independent of a cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive dialogue, each necessarily implicates the other.” (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54 (Gelfo).) It is unlawful for employers to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an . . . employee.” (§ 12940, subd. (m).) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the emp 2013(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11068, subd. (d) & (d)(3).) "If the employee cannot be accommodated in his or her existing position and the requested accommodation is reassignment, an employer must make affirmative efforts to determine whether a position is available." (Raine v. City of Burbank (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223 (Raine).) As with a FEHA discrimination claim, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that he or she had the "ability to perform the essential functions of a job with accommodation." (Nadaf- Rahrov, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 977 .) Defendants moved for summary adjudic | 4 | 4 |
Lui v. City & County of San Franciscogreen2 sentences2023Failure to accommodate claim Under the FEHA, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer “to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an . . . employee” unless the accommodation would cause “undue hardship” to the employer. (§ 12940, subd. (m)(1); see Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254, 262 (Green).) “A ‘reasonable accommodation’ means a modification or adjustment to the workplace that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job held or desired. [Citation.]” (Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School Distric 2023Failure to accommodate claim Under the FEHA, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer “to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an . . . employee” unless the accommodation would cause “undue hardship” to the employer. (§ 12940, subd. (m)(1); see Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254, 262 (Green).) “A ‘reasonable accommodation’ means a modification or adjustment to the workplace that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job held or desired. [Citation.]” (Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School Distric | 3 | 8 |
Nadaf-Rahrov v. the Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.green2 sentences2025Code, § 12940, subd. (m)(1).) A reasonable accommodation is “a modification or adjustment to the workplace that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job held or desired.” (Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 952, 974 (Nadaf-Rahrov).) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are ‘(1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff’s disability.’ ” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified Sch. 2025“While a claim of failure to accommodate is independent of a cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive dialogue, each necessarily implicates the other.” (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54 (Gelfo).) It is unlawful for employers to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an . . . employee.” (§ 12940, subd. (m).) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the emp | 3 | 6 |
Spitzer v. the Good Guys, Inc.green2 sentences2025“While a claim of failure to accommodate is independent of a cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive dialogue, each necessarily implicates the other.” (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54 (Gelfo).) It is unlawful for employers to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an . . . employee.” (§ 12940, subd. (m).) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the emp 2017(See Raine v. City of Burbank (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 899 ] (Raine) [reassignment may be required where “the employee cannot be accommodated in his or her existing position”]; Spitzer v. Good Guys, Inc. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1389 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 236 ] (Spitzer) [an employer generally has a duty under FEHA to reassign a disabled employee whose limitations cannot be reasonably accommodated in his or her current job]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11068, subd. (d)(1)(A) [reassignment may be a reasonable accommodation where “the employee can no longer perform the ess | 3 | 3 |
Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corporationgreen2 sentences2025“While a claim of failure to accommodate is independent of a cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive dialogue, each necessarily implicates the other.” (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54 (Gelfo).) It is unlawful for employers to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an . . . employee.” (§ 12940, subd. (m).) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the emp 2025“While a claim of failure to accommodate is independent of a cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive dialogue, each necessarily implicates the other.” (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54 (Gelfo).) It is unlawful for employers to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an . . . employee.” (§ 12940, subd. (m).) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the emp | 3 | 3 |
Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.green2 sentences2020(Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354, fn. 20 ; see CACI No. 2500, Directions for Use.) 10 “Because of the similarity between state and federal employment discrimination laws, California courts look to pertinent federal precedent when applying our own statutes.” (Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354 .) 10 or refusal to accommodate) because of the employee’s inability to fulfill the job requirement. 2020(Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354, fn. 20 ; see CACI No. 2500, Directions for Use.) 10 “Because of the similarity between state and federal employment discrimination laws, California courts look to pertinent federal precedent when applying our own statutes.” (Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354 .) 10 or refusal to accommodate) because of the employee’s inability to fulfill the job requirement. | 2 | 2 |
Hastings v. Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2017(See Hastings v. Department of Corrections (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 963, 971 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 329 ] (Hastings) [to establish a FEHA claim for discrimination “the plaintiff must prove he is qualified for the position for which an accommodation is sought,” not for another position requested as a reassignment]; see also Furtado, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 [distinguishing in the context of a failure to accommodate claim between the showing FEHA requires of “those seeking a position and those already in the position”].) The question whether plaintiffs could perform the essential functions of a p 2017(See Hastings v. Department of Corrections (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 963, 971 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 329 ] (Hastings) [to establish a FEHA claim for discrimination “the plaintiff must prove he is qualified for the position for which an accommodation is sought,” not for another position requested as a reassignment]; see also Furtado, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 [distinguishing in the context of a failure to accommodate claim between the showing FEHA requires of “those seeking a position and those already in the position”].) The question whether plaintiffs could perform the essential functions of a p | 2 | 2 |
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.green2 sentences2017To satisfy this initial burden in an employment discrimination case, a defendant employer must either undermine an element of the plaintiff's prima facie case-by affirmatively negating it or showing the plaintiff cannot prove it-or provide a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. ( Id. at pp. 965-966, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 553 ; see Aguilar, supra , 25 Cal.4th at pp. 853-854, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 .) In addition to making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of disability, the FEHA makes it unlawful "to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the know 2017To satisfy this initial burden in an employment discrimination case, a defendant employer must either undermine an element of the plaintiff's prima facie case-by affirmatively negating it or showing the plaintiff cannot prove it-or provide a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. ( Id. at pp. 965-966, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 553 ; see Aguilar, supra , 25 Cal.4th at pp. 853-854, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 .) In addition to making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of disability, the FEHA makes it unlawful "to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the know | 2 | 2 |
Nealy v. City of Santa Monicagreen2 sentences2025The Trial Court Erred in Granting the Motion for Summary Adjudication on Montes’s Causes of Action for Failure To Provide Reasonable Accommodations and Failure To Engage in an Interactive Process Section 12940, subdivision (m)(1), makes it an unlawful employment practice to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability” of an employee. “‘The essential elements of a failure to accommodate claim are: 16 (1) the plaintiff has a disability covered by the FEHA; (2) the plaintiff is a qualified individual (i.e., he or she can perform the essential functions of th 2024The Evidence Did Not Compel a Verdict for Torres on her Disability Causes of Action FEHA requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s known physical disability unless doing so would cause an undue hardship to the employer. (§ 12940, subd. (m)(1); Atkins v. City of Los Angeles (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 696, 714 .) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are ‘“(1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position [held or desired], and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff' | 1 | 4 |
King v. United Parcel Service, Inc.green2 sentences2025“While a claim of failure to accommodate is independent of a cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive dialogue, each necessarily implicates the other.” (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54 (Gelfo).) It is unlawful for employers to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an . . . employee.” (§ 12940, subd. (m).) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the emp 2016Nor is an employer ordinarily liable for failing to accommodate a disability of which it had no knowledge." ' " (King, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 443 .) As we explained, Darrington failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he has a disability within the meaning of the FEHA. | 1 | 2 |
Shirley Weigel v. Target Stores, a Division of Dayton Hudson Corporationgreen2 sentences2017(See Weigel v. Target Stores (7th Cir. 11 1997) 122 F.3d 461, 464 [“in failure to accommodate claims the McDonnell Douglas framework is ‘unnecessary and inappropriate’ ”].) Finally, the FEHA prohibits an employer from harassing an employee “because of . . . physical disability.” (§ 12940, subd. (j)(1).) Cornell’s claim of disability harassment requires a showing “ ‘that the conduct complained of was severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a work environment that qualifies as hostile or abusive to employees because of their [disability].’ ” (Hope 2017(See *927 Weigel v. Target Stores (7th Cir. 1997) 122 F.3d 461 , 464 ["in failure to accommodate claims the McDonnell Douglas framework is 'unnecessary and inappropriate' "].) Finally, the FEHA prohibits an employer from harassing an employee "because of ... physical disability." ( § 12940, subd. (j)(1).) Cornell's claim of disability harassment requires a showing " 'that the conduct complained of was severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a work environment that qualifies as hostile or abusive to employees because of their [disability].' " ( H | 1 | 2 |
Wysinger v. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SO. CALIF.green1 sentence2025The Trial Court Erred in Granting the Motion for Summary Adjudication on Montes’s Causes of Action for Failure To Provide Reasonable Accommodations and Failure To Engage in an Interactive Process Section 12940, subdivision (m)(1), makes it an unlawful employment practice to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability” of an employee. “‘The essential elements of a failure to accommodate claim are: 16 (1) the plaintiff has a disability covered by the FEHA; (2) the plaintiff is a qualified individual (i.e., he or she can perform the essential functions of th | 1 | 1 |
Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Groupgreen1 sentence2025“While a claim of failure to accommodate is independent of a cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive dialogue, each necessarily implicates the other.” (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54 (Gelfo).) It is unlawful for employers to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an . . . employee.” (§ 12940, subd. (m).) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the emp | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Regents of the University of Californiagreen1 sentence2023Sianez’s failure to accommodate and failure to engage in interactive process causes of action are not precluded “While a claim of failure to accommodate is independent of a cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive dialogue, each necessarily implicates the other.” (Moore v. Regents of 14 University of California (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 216, 242 (Moore).) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are ‘“(1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position [held or desired], and (3) the employer fai | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Failure to accommodate claim Under the FEHA, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer “to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an . . . employee” unless the accommodation would cause “undue hardship” to the employer. (§ 12940, subd. (m)(1); see Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254, 262 (Green).) “A ‘reasonable accommodation’ means a modification or adjustment to the workplace that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job held or desired. [Citation.]” (Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School Distric 2023Failure to accommodate claim Under the FEHA, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer “to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an . . . employee” unless the accommodation would cause “undue hardship” to the employer. (§ 12940, subd. (m)(1); see Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254, 262 (Green).) “A ‘reasonable accommodation’ means a modification or adjustment to the workplace that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job held or desired. [Citation.]” (Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School Distric | 1 | 1 |
| Brantley v. Pisarogreen | 1 | 1 |
| A.M. v. Albertsons, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fisher v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bradley v. CAL. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATIONgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Swanson v. Morongo Unif. School Dist. CA4/3
green
2 sentences2025Failure to accommodate disability (seventh cause of action) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are ‘(1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of his position, and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff’s disability.’” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954, 969 ; accord, Wilson v. County of Orange (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1192 .) “[A]n employer who knows of the disability of an employee has an affirmative duty” to offer a reasonable accommodation. 2022Code, § 12940, subd. (m).) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff’s disability.” (Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 , 1009- 1010.) “A reasonable accommodation is any ‘ “modification or adjustment to the workplace that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job held or desired.” ’ [Citation.] Reasonable accommodations include ‘[j | 4 | 2017–2025 |
Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2025The Trial Court Erred in Granting the Motion for Summary Adjudication on Montes’s Causes of Action for Failure To Provide Reasonable Accommodations and Failure To Engage in an Interactive Process Section 12940, subdivision (m)(1), makes it an unlawful employment practice to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability” of an employee. “‘The essential elements of a failure to accommodate claim are: 16 (1) the plaintiff has a disability covered by the FEHA; (2) the plaintiff is a qualified individual (i.e., he or she can perform the essential functions of th 2014(Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 757, 766 .) 24 burden of showing there is a triable issue of fact]; Code Civ. | 3 | 2014–2025 |
Hernandez v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. Coll. Dist.
green
2 sentences2025(Miller v. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 261 , 278 (Miller); Park v. Board of Trustees (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1067 .) 30 Sexton agrees, citing Hernandez v. Rancho Santiago Community College District (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1187 , 1193– 1194. 2023(Citing Hernandez v. Rancho Santiago Community College Dist. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1187 , 1193–1194.) Re-affirming its prior findings, the court concluded that Lopez did not carry her burden of proving the second and third elements of this claim. 4. | 2 | 2023–2025 |
Atkins v. City of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2024The Evidence Did Not Compel a Verdict for Torres on her Disability Causes of Action FEHA requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s known physical disability unless doing so would cause an undue hardship to the employer. (§ 12940, subd. (m)(1); Atkins v. City of Los Angeles (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 696, 714 .) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are ‘“(1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position [held or desired], and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff' 2024“FEHA imposes on employers the duty to reasonably accommodate their employees’ physical disabilities.” (Atkins, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 721 .) Government Code section 12940, subdivision (m)(1), makes it an unlawful employment practice to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee.” “The essential elements of a failure to accommodate claim are: (1) the plaintiff has a disability covered by the FEHA; (2) the plaintiff is a qualified individual (i.e., he or she can perform the essential functions of the position); and (3) the | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020By contrast, where the employee’s disparate treatment claim is that the employer failed to accommodate a religious practice, the employee does not have to show “ ‘actual knowledge’ of the [employee’s] need for an accommodation”; the employee “need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.” (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (2015) 575 U.S. 768 , __ [ 135 S.Ct. 2028, 2032 ] (Abercrombie & Fitch) [under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.10].) Thus, to prevail on a failure to accommodate claim, the emp 2020By contrast, where the employee’s disparate treatment claim is that the employer failed to accommodate a religious practice, the employee does not have to show “ ‘actual knowledge’ of the [employee’s] need for an accommodation”; the employee “need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.” (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (2015) 575 U.S. 768 , __ [ 135 S.Ct. 2028, 2032 ] (Abercrombie & Fitch) [under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.10].) Thus, to prevail on a failure to accommodate claim, the emp | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Hope v. California Youth Authority
green
2 sentences2017(See *927 Weigel v. Target Stores (7th Cir. 1997) 122 F.3d 461 , 464 ["in failure to accommodate claims the McDonnell Douglas framework is 'unnecessary and inappropriate' "].) Finally, the FEHA prohibits an employer from harassing an employee "because of ... physical disability." ( § 12940, subd. (j)(1).) Cornell's claim of disability harassment requires a showing " 'that the conduct complained of was severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a work environment that qualifies as hostile or abusive to employees because of their [disability].' " ( H 2017(See *927 Weigel v. Target Stores (7th Cir. 1997) 122 F.3d 461 , 464 ["in failure to accommodate claims the McDonnell Douglas framework is 'unnecessary and inappropriate' "].) Finally, the FEHA prohibits an employer from harassing an employee "because of ... physical disability." ( § 12940, subd. (j)(1).) Cornell's claim of disability harassment requires a showing " 'that the conduct complained of was severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a work environment that qualifies as hostile or abusive to employees because of their [disability].' " ( H | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025“While a claim of failure to accommodate is independent of a cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive dialogue, each necessarily implicates the other.” (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54 (Gelfo).) It is unlawful for employers to “fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an . . . employee.” (§ 12940, subd. (m).) “The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the emp | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025(Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 935, 950 .) Defendants made a prima facie showing that Manuao could not establish at least one element of her failure to accommodate cause of action: that defendants failed to reasonably accommodate Manuao’s disability. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Craig Murray Belknap
green
1 sentence2025(See § 12926, subd. (p); Scotch, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1010 ; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11065, subd. (p)(2).) But hiring additional personnel is not a “reasonable accommodation.” (Patton v. Dobson Assn. (9th Cir. 1997) 113 F.3d 1242 , reported in full at 1997 U.S.App.LEXIS 9615, at p. *3.) Section 12940, subdivision (n), requires employers to engage in a good faith interactive process to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, “in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee . . . with a known physical or mental disability.” (Raine, supra, 135 Cal.Ap | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Park v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.
green
1 sentence2025(Miller v. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 261 , 278 (Miller); Park v. Board of Trustees (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1067 .) 30 Sexton agrees, citing Hernandez v. Rancho Santiago Community College District (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1187 , 1193– 1194. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Smith v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 11
green
1 sentence2016(Smith v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1637, 1653 .) “[T]he employer cannot prevail on summary judgment on a claim of failure to reasonably accommodate unless it establishes through undisputed facts that (1) reasonable accommodation was offered and refused; (2) there simply was no vacant position within the employer’s organization for which the disabled employee was qualified and which the disabled employee was capable of performing with or without accommodation; or (3) the employer did everything in its power to find a reasonable accommodation, but th | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.