Dealing with employees who have emotional or psychological problems can be challenging both personally and legally. And now, handling these issues is trickier than ever in light of two recent conflicting cases on the definition of mental disability.
Court Finds Loophole
In the first case, brought against Bowersmith Inc. based in the Tulare County town of Exeter, the Court of Appeal concluded that it’s easier to establish a mental disability than a physical disability under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. That’s because the definition of a physical disability covered by the law is one which impairs a major life activity such as working, eating or breathing. But there’s no similar requirement that a mental condition be so serious as to impair a major life activity.
So, theoretically, an employee with a heart condition could have a harder time establishing a right to protection under the law than someone with a reading or learning disability. (Note that the Fair Employment and Housing Act covers employers with five or more employees for physical disabilities and employers of 15 or more for mental disabilities).
Join us this fall in San Francisco for the California Employment Law Update conference, a 3-day event that will teach you everything you need to know about new laws and regulations, and your compliance obligations, for the year ahead—it’s one-stop shopping at its best.
No Difference Between Mental And Physical Disabilities?
In the second case, involving the Automobile Club of Southern California, another Court of Appeal acknowledged that the wording of California’s statute doesn’t expressly require that a mental disability impair a major life activity in order for the employee to be protected. However, the court ruled that the definition of mental disability in the California law was intended to mirror the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which does require that a mental disability—like a physical disability—substantially limit a major life activity.
Therefore, despite the omission in the state law’s language, the court ruled an employee is protected only if the mental disability interferes with a major life activity. So, according to this court, it’s no easier for an employee to make a claim for mental disability than for physical disability.
Impact On You
Unless the conflict in the decisions is resolved, there could be a rash of new claims by employees seeking to take advantage of the Bowersmith case, which provides a more lenient definition of mental disability. Employers, on the other hand, will argue that the Automobile Club case should apply, limiting the coverage of the law to mental disabilities that interfere with a major life activity.
Here’s an example of how this problem could have a very real impact on you. A worker may claim to be disabled by stress and depression brought about from working for a particular supervisor. Under the Automobile Club decision (and the ADA), the employee probably wouldn’t be considered disabled and no accommodation, such as a transfer to a new manager, would be required. That’s because there’s no interference with the major life activity of working since the person could still work for another boss.