Under California anti-discrimination law, a disabled employee typically has only one year from the date of a firing, demotion or other wrongful employment action to file a lawsuit. But now the California Supreme Court has ruled that disabled workers may be able to sue for discrimination incidents that occurred many years earlier. We’ll tell you why this is and how the decision impacts you.
Employee With MS Seeks Accommodations
Lachi Richards was a civil engineer with the Redding office of CH2M Hill Inc., a nationwide engineering firm. After being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, she began using a wheelchair. Over the next five years, Richards claimed, CH2M Hill was largely unwilling to accommodate her disability.
Richards first asked for a computer to work at home part-time and then sought a transfer to Sacramento because the Redding office wasn’t wheelchair accessible. She requested that the company remove impediments that made it difficult for her to access office areas and maneuver her wheelchair—including doors that were difficult to open and doorways and hallways blocked with boxes and furniture. She also asked for a bed so she could rest during breaks and at lunchtime.
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.
Company Fails To Cooperate
Richards claimed that supervisors thought she was “trying to milk the company,” which resulted in her requests being handled slowly or half-heartedly, rejected or outright ignored. For example, she never received a computer from CH2M and finally bought one herself with assistance from the state Department of Rehabilitation. Her suggestions for remedying problems that made it difficult to use or access the office wheelchair ramp, elevator, library, lunchroom and supply room were never satisfactorily addressed. (At one point, Richards was asked to go on an assignment that required climbing over barbed-wire fences.) And instead of a bed, CH2M Hill acquired a folding army cot and placed it in an unheated, uncooled storage area employees called “the black hole.”
After almost five years of problems, Richards raised her concerns again in writing. Her manager allegedly responded that Richards was facing a brick wall and that nothing would change. Although a human resources administrator then began making an earnest effort to address her problems, Richards resigned, stating that the events of the previous years had taken a toll on her health.
Jury Verdict For Employee
Nearly a year later, Richards sued, alleging disability harassment and discrimination dating back five years. A jury awarded her more than $1.4 million in damages. CH2M Hill appealed, arguing that under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, it couldn’t be held liable for alleged unlawful conduct that had occurred more than one year before Richards sued.
Continuing Course Of Illegal Acts May Extend Time To Sue
The California Supreme Court, however, ruled that employers can be liable for illegal acts occurring outside the one-year period for filing a lawsuit. This is true if, over an extended period of time, the employer engages in a continuing course of illegal conductïsuch as persistently failing to accommodate disabilities or eliminate harassment. The one-year period for suing is triggered, however, when 1) the course of conduct comes to an end, such as when the employee is terminated, or 2) the employer’s statements or actions make it clear that further efforts to seek accommodation or end harassment will be futile. The case will now return to the trial court to evaluate CH2M Hill’s claims that it clearly indicated to Richards at several points during the five years that it wouldn’t accommodate her.
Practical Impact
This decision means it’s essential to promptly determine whether a suitable reasonable accommodation exists when an employee requests one. If problems drag on and the employee accuses you of not providing a reasonable accommodation or of obstructing the accommodation process, you could be hit with damages going back many years.
Previous cases have established that your accommodation obligation is a continuing duty that isn’t satisfied by one effort. So it’s important to periodically re-evaluate whether an accommodation is working. If it isn’t, explore whether the employee could perform the essential job functions with an alternative accommodation. And if it becomes obvious that you cannot provide a workable accommodation, clearly communicate this in writing to the employee. Mixed messages about your intentions could keep the door open for the employee to file a lawsuit many years down the road.