A recent California decision serves as a reminder to employers that the landscape of disability discrimination is quite complex. When an employer evaluates an employee’s disability, the legal consequences of a factual mistake—even an honest mistake—will be borne by the employer.
 |
Stanislaus County employed Dennis Wallace as a deputy sheriff. Wallace suffered on-the-job injuries to his knee. Based on his physician’s work restrictions, the county assigned him to a series of light-duty positions in the sheriff’s department. He performed well and received positive performance reviews.
Then, at the county’s behest, Wallace underwent an “agreed medical examination” by a physician who imposed more severe work restrictions. Based on the new restrictions, the county determined that it didn’t have any position for him in the sheriff’s department, and moreover, he could not safely perform the sheriff’s job without risk of harm to himself and others.
The county removed Wallace from his bailiff position and placed him on unpaid leave, which it characterized as a “reasonable accommodation.” It also made efforts, albeit sporadically, to find him another county job.
Wallace sued the county for disability discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found that he was able to perform the essential duties of a deputy sheriff with or without reasonable accommodation, even though the county treated him as if he had a disability.
However, in response to the trial court’s instruction on the employer’s motive, the jury found that the county did not “regard or treat Dennis Wallace as having a physical disability in order to discriminate” and concluded that the county wasn’t liable.
Wallace appealed.
Read on for more details, including the outcome of the case and how disability bias is not like other discrimination.