Executive Summary
Overview: In an unprecedented opinion, a California Court of Appeal has held that an employer has a duty to reasonably accommodate an applicant or employee who is associated with a disabled person who needs the employee’s assistance.
Effective Date: Immediate.
Coverage: All employers with employees working in California and subject to the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Action Required: Until there is a definite ruling on this issue from California’s highest court, employers should:
- In addition to other leave obligations, consider employee requests for accommodation related to their family members’ disabilities and engage these employees in the interactive process; and ensure that supervisors are prepared to receive such requests for accommodation and promptly report them to the appropriate employer designated official.
The Details
In Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., Plaintiff Luis Castro-Ramirez drove a delivery truck for Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (DHE). Castro-Ramirez’s son was in need of a kidney transplant, and he required daily dialysis treatment. Castro-Ramirez was the only member of his family capable of operating the dialysis machine. Upon commencing his employment in 2010, Castro-Ramirez notified his supervisor of his son’s condition and requested an assignment that would allow him to be home in the evening to administer his son’s dialysis. For nearly three years, Castro-Ramirez’s supervisors granted his request and assigned him routes and schedules that allowed him to be home in the evenings.
In 2013, Castro-Ramirez was assigned a new supervisor, who he also notified of his need to be home in the evenings. Disregarding the request, the supervisor assigned Castro-Ramirez a route that prevented him from being home in time for his son’s dialysis. Castro-Ramirez complained to his former supervisor and even requested another route, but the new supervisor denied his request and told Castro-Ramirez if he did not run the route he would be fired. Castro-Ramirez refused the assignment, and DHE eventually terminated his employment. He sued DHE for associational disability discrimination. He also sued DHE for a failure to accommodate but later abandoned that claim. Castro-Ramirez simply argued that failing to provide him with a schedule accommodation was itself discrimination. The trial court rejected Castro-Ramirez’s argument and he appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed.
The appellate court found that FEHA’s statutory language defining “physical disability” also encompassed a person who is associated with a person who has disabilities. According to the appellate court, associating with a person with disabilities is itself a disability for the purposes of FEHA and must, therefore, be accommodated.
The decision is currently binding law in the Second Appellate District, which includes Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties. There is the possibility that DHE will request review from the California Supreme Court, which could reverse this decision or could extend the decision throughout the state. If the Supreme Court does not consider the matter, or while such an appeal is pending, other appellate courts may follow the reasoning set forth, or may decline to follow the court’s holding. Until such time, the court’s ruling should be treated as a reported decision that requires employers to proceed with caution when confronted with an employee’s or applicant’s request for accommodation to attend to a disabled family member.
As always, please contact your Human Resources Business Partner if you have any questions.
This content provides practical information concerning the subject matter covered and is provided with the understanding that ADP is not rendering legal advice.