One of our ongoing themes has been the extent of an employer’s obligation to accommodate disabled employees. A recent unpublished court of appeal decision – Swanson v Morongo Unified – illustrates this point.
Swanson, an elementary school teacher, had recently been treated for
From the employer’s perspective, the only way to truly “win” an employment case is to avoid it in the first place. We litigators love the thrill of gettting a judge, arbitrator, or jury to decide in our client’s favor. But it can be awfully expensive to get to that point. So without further ado,
Last April, we reported on a case where an employer fired an employee for helping herself to a bag of potato chips without paying. The employee argued that she is diabetic and needed the chips because of low blood sugar. The EEOC, striking a blow for the rights of snack food thieves everywhere, filed suit
With increasing frequency, employees are relying on disabilities to excuse work-related misconduct. While we’ve been writing about this for years (some suggested that my 2011 post “To What Extent Are California Employers Required To Accommodate Violent Nutjobs” was insensitively titled), a recent decision out of California takes the cake, or in this case,
I’ve written plenty about the complexities of the interactive process and accommodating disabled workers (such as here and here and here and here). Not all your employees need to understand those complexities. But everyone in an organization who receives employment applications or inquiries needs to understand that the obligation to accommodate extends to applicants
I’ve said before that one of the most daunting challenges facing employers today is understanding the extent of their obligation to accommodate disabled workers. The difficulty stems from the breadth of impairments that qualify as disabilities and how far the the law expects employers to go (in terms of expense, inefficiencies, and disruptions) to enable
In a prior post, I discussed what triggers the obligation to engage in the interactive process. Once that obligation arises, what is it employers are required to do?
According to California’s new disability regulations (specifically, 2 CCR sec. 7294.0), "Both the employer or other covered entity and the applicant, employee or the individual’s representative shall
I spoke at a seminar yesterday on Recent Developments in Employment Law. Talking to the attendees confirmed that there is still considerable angst over the new disability regulations that took effect in California in December 2012 (found in Title 2, Division 4, Chapter 2, Subchapter 9 of the California Code of Regulations). While I
New disability regulations (pdf) took effect this year for California employers with five or more employees. They include the following:
o Examples of physical disabilities, namely “deafness, blindness, partially or completely missing limbs, mobility impairments requiring the use of a wheelchair,
We already know that California law for pregnant employees is much more generous than other states. Pregnant women here can get up to seven months of protected time off, with insurance benefits and reinstatement; that is up to four months off for pregnancy disability leave (PDL) in addition to twelve weeks off for baby bonding