REPRESENTING UNIONS & EMPLOYEES SINCE 1936
facebook twitter linkedin youtube

Oakland: 510.625.9700 | Sacramento: 916.325.2100

Greater Burden on Plaintiffs in Reasonable Accommodation Cases

January 13, 2009 by

The California Supreme Court has made it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in Disability Discrimination cases under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). In Green v. State of California, (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 254, the state Supreme Court held that employees have the burden of proving they can perform all of the essential functions of the job.

FEHA and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) provide that an employer only has to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability if the employee can perform the essential functions of the job. For several years, courts have held that under the ADA the plaintiff bears the burden of proving he or she is able to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without accommodations. But the state Courts of Appeal split on whether it is the employer or the employee who carries this burden. The state Supreme Court’s decision in Green brings the plaintiff’s burden of proof in FEHA claims in line with the ADA.

The ruling could make it more difficult for employees to prevail in FEHA claims that allege an employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. Prior to Green, some state courts required the employer to prove that the employee could not perform the essential functions of the job. It is now clear that plaintiffs have the affirmative burden of pleading and providing evidence that the employee is able to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without an accommodation.

The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.