Over the last few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued several rulings narrowing the definition of what constitutes a disability under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Now, the California Supreme Court has ruled that California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) affords workers broader protections than the ADA.
Foreman Terminated After Back Injury
Francisco Colmenares was employed by Los Angeles-based Braemar Country Club for more than 25 years, working his way up from general laborer to golf course maintenance foreman. Colmenares eventually suffered a permanent back injury on the job that limited him to performing only light work, which his foreman job accommodated.
But a few years later, a new supervisor came on board who began giving Colmenares unfavorable performance reviews and then transferred him to a heavy-labor position that required him to dig ditches and pour cement. Two months later, Braemar Country Club fired Colmenares for poor performance.
Worker Charges Disability Bias
Colmenares claimed he was fired because of his bad back, in violation of the FEHA’s disability-bias provisions. Braemar Country Club argued that Colmenares wasn’t disabled because Colmenares himself had conceded that his back condition didn’t substantially limit his ability to work as a foreman.
But Colmenares pointed out that although the ADA requires that an impairment “substantially limit” one or more major life activities, the FEHA only requires that an impairment “limit” a major life activity.
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.
Substantial Limitation Not Required
Now the California Supreme Court has sided with Colmenares, agreeing that the FEHA provides an employee more protection than the ADA when it comes to how limiting a physical disability must be.
Note that in 2000, after this case was filed, the FEHA was amended to expressly state—and clear up any possible confusion—that California law only requires some limitation on a major life activity, and not a substantial limitation as the ADA does.
The case will now return to the lower court, where Colmenares will have to demonstrate that he had a physical disability under the FEHA. To do this, he’ll only have to show that his condition limited his ability to participate in one or more major life activities.
Differences Between State and Federal Law
Because this difference between the FEHA and the ADA was clarified by the 2000 amendments to the FEHA, this new decision only affects lawsuits that were pending before those changes. Nevertheless, the court’s ruling highlights that the FEHA provides some broader protections than the ADA for workers who are physically or mentally disabled.Here’s a rundown on the key ways in which the FEHA differs from the ADA:
- Substantial limitation not required. To qualify as a disability under state law, a physical or mental impairment must limit a major life activity. “Limit” means the disability makes achieving the major life activity difficult.
- Smaller employers covered. State law applies to employers with five or more employees, except for religious organizations and not-for-profit corporations. The ADA applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including some religious organizations.
- Mitigating measures not considered. The FEHA requires employers to ignore corrective measures—such as eyeglasses or hearing aids—when determining whether a worker is disabled. Such corrective measures must be taken into account under the ADA.
- Working as a major life activity. Under the FEHA, the major life activity of working is limited even if the impairment affects the employee’s performance of only one particular job. But under the ADA, an employee must demonstrate that they can’t perform a wide range of jobs.