This article was originally published in February 2014. The information has been reviewed and is up-to-date as of August 2021.
Under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the employer has the duty to identify and implement a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled employee to perform
This post was authored by Sarah R. Lustig.
A recent case is a good reminder to employers that scent and chemical sensitivities can indeed be considered a disability subject to the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and/or the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). John Barrie (Barrie) suffers from allergic sensitivities
This post was authored by Matthew Nakano.
On July 11, 2017, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore’s Jennifer Rosner partnered with Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) Assistant Chief Counsel Paula Pearlman to present a seminar on “How to Avoid Claims of Disability Discrimination: The Road to Reasonable Accommodation.” This seminar focused on navigating the challenges
The following questions, which implicate the Public Records Act, are frequently asked: how long does an agency need to retain and maintain public records? How long does an agency need to retain the recordings of public meetings?
The purpose of the Public Records Act (PRA) is to give the public access documents and other stored
This guest post was authored by Alison Carrinski
Emerging technologies, such as e-book readers, seem to be everywhere and growing in numbers. E-book readers offer students the ability to download books instantaneously and carry hundreds of books on a hand-held device. But given that some e-book readers do not have text-to-speech functionality or Braille displays
We get questions…
An employer called with this inquiry: “one of our employees has been on leave under The Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for a serious health condition and the 12 weeks have expired. The employee has not come back to work and the most recent medical note states that the employee will
This guest post was authored by Heather DeBlanc
The American Disabilities Act (ADA) used to allow any animal to qualify as a “service animal” as long as it was trained to do a task for an individual with a disability. In the early 1990’s, when the Department of Justice originally issued its regulations, ADA did
This guest post was authored by Oliver Yee
Employee substance abuse poses significant challenges for employers. At what point in time is a drug user no longer a user? Certainly, given the complexities surrounding drug use, addiction and recovery, this is a difficult question for an employer to answer. The 10th Circuit U.S. Court
Public agencies are becoming more and more compliant with the obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA) in conducting the interactive process dialogue with disabled employees to seek reasonable accommodation which will allow the employee to perform the essential functions of their jobs. Where feasible, jobs
On how many occasions have you found yourself asking whether you can lawfully send an employee for a fitness for duty evaluation? At one time or another you may have been faced with an employee whose ability to perform their job is questioned. Sometimes these situations are clear: the employee is actually failing to perform his or her job duties and you have cause to believe they are not fit for duty. However, what about situations where an employee is performing the functions and duties of their job, 
but is acting out behaviorally in a way that is stressful and disruptful to a department or unit? Can that employee be sent for a fitness for duty evaluation even though they are competently performing their actual job duties?
In Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 612 F. 3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2010), Brownfield, a Yakima police officer, was performing his duties as a peace officer, but his communications with his supervisors were overly emotional on about five occasions. For example, he used an expletive and he walked out of a meeting with two of his supervisors. On another occasion, Brownfield swore at a supervisor and told him to leave the room when he was talking with another officer. As a result of this behavior, the City ordered Brownfield to undergo a fitness for duty examination. The doctor diagnosed Brownfield with a permanent mood disorder and concluded that he was unfit for police duty. The City terminated Brownfield on the ground that he was unfit for duty.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds That Behavioral Issues Warrant Fitness For Duty Examination