The California Supreme Court has confirmed that the definition of a “disability” protected by California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”) is far broader than that protected by the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  In Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc., issued on February 20, 2003, the Court found that recent amendments to the FEHA merely clarified what had long been a distinction between California and federal law — that impairments need not be “substantially” limiting in order to qualify for state law protection.  This decision has the effect of expanding the scope of California disability law beyond the definitions in both federal courts across the nation and California courts in the past, leaving potential coverage unpredictably broad.

In Colmenares, plaintiff admitted that his “chronic back injury” did not “substantially” limit his ability to perform his work as a golf course maintenance crew foreman.  Based upon that admission, the trial court granted summary judgment against plaintiff on the ground that he did not have a disability protected by the FEHA.  While the case was on appeal, the California Legislature passed AB2222, which expanded the FEHA disability discrimination prohibitions, by, among other things, eliminating the word “substantially” from the definition of limitations to major life activities necessary for a protected mental disability, the word already having been omitted from the definition of the state physical disability definition.  AB2222 explained that such a qualifying disease or condition “limits a major life activity if it makes the achievement” of the activity “difficult.”  The California Supreme Court reversed summary judgment, holding that AB2222 was merely a clarification of the long-standing distinction between federal and state law (at least with respect to physical disabilities) and reversing prior California court decisions that had defined state law physical disability protections by relying upon cases interpreting the federal ADA.

Following this decision, a California court hearing a FEHA disability discrimination claim will be unable to rely upon any federal precedent to limit what impairments might qualify for legal protection, obliging employers to engage in an interactive process concerning potential accommodation for almost any impairment.  This is particularly the case given that AB2222 also mandated that (1) the degree of limitation is to be considered before the effects of any mitigating measures (contrary to US Supreme Court decisions interpreting the ADA), and (2) the state definition of “major life activities” is to be broadly construed to include working (the later category having recently been questioned under the federal ADA).  Thus, for example, in order to establish a protected disability, a FEHA plaintiff need only demonstrate that the physical or mental impairment would render work difficult if the plaintiff failed to use medication or other available corrective techniques.  In most cases, the employer’s actions will have demonstrated that the plaintiff was limited in his or her ability to work, or at least the employer believed the plaintiff to be so limited — either of which will support a disability discrimination claim under California law.

What is the practical effect of this decision?  

Whenever an employee claims a medical or mental condition that may limit the employee’s ability to work or engage in other activities, California law will likely require the employer to engage in a dialogue (i.e., interactive process) to explore potential accommodation.  Since California courts have also been quite expansive in their view of what accommodations are “reasonable,” this dialogue may in some circumstances include discussion of potential leaves of absence and placement into alternative job vacancies within the company.  Given this broad scope, companies should consult California counsel before discharging or otherwise declining to accommodate an employee suffering a physical or mental impairment.