Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process

Scope and warning#

This Roadmap focuses on California FEHA's interactive-process duty under Government Code section 12940(n) and 2 C.C.R. section 11069. Federal ADA law also uses an interactive process as part of identifying reasonable accommodation, but federal doctrine does not simply duplicate California's separately worded statutory cause of action.

Roadmap 014 addresses the substantive accommodation duty. Roadmap 016 addresses return-to-work and medical-clearance disputes. Roadmap 017 addresses medical examinations and inquiries. Roadmap 018 addresses direct-threat and safety defenses. Roadmap 019 addresses retaliation.

The distinction matters. A plaintiff may plead failure to accommodate (§ 12940(m)(1)), failure to engage in the interactive process (§ 12940(n)), discrimination (§ 12940(a)), and retaliation for requesting accommodation (§ 12940(m)(2)) if the evidence supports their separate elements. An employer may violate the process provision without committing discriminatory discharge, yet later failure to implement an already-agreed accommodation ordinarily implicates the substantive accommodation duty rather than proving a fresh process violation without an additional, unresolved request. Brown v. LAUSD (external site) (discussing A.M. v. Albertsons); Lin (external site) (new need after initial accommodation).

The factual situation this roadmap addresses#

Consider a hypothetical employee who has worked with a schedule accommodation for several years. A new operational rule conflicts with that arrangement. The employee says a medical condition requires flexibility and asks whether the accommodation remains in place. HR asks for medical documentation. The employee supplies a provider note stating that the employee can work but needs a defined schedule adjustment. HR sends a standard form seeking additional information. The employee objects that some questions are unrelated. The employer says the process is incomplete and keeps the employee off work.

The legal issue is not solved by asking who sent the last email.

Questions include: What did the employer already know? Was the accommodation need obvious? What information was actually necessary? Did the employer explain why existing documentation was insufficient? Did the employee provide information needed to assess restrictions? Was there a meaningful discussion of alternatives? Did anyone analyze essential functions? Was reassignment considered if the existing job could not be performed? Did either party simply stop engaging? Did circumstances change after leave, a new medical note, or a failed initial accommodation?

A chronology of the exchange is often more informative than a label such as "interactive process."

Governing law#

FEHA's separate statutory duty

Government Code section 12940(n) makes it an unlawful employment practice for a covered employer or other covered entity to fail to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by a person with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition.

California courts have repeatedly treated subdivision (n) as a distinct FEHA theory. Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. described the interactive-process obligation as an independent basis for liability. More recent published decisions continue to distinguish subdivision (n) from discrimination and accommodation claims.

Section 11069 operationalizes the duty

2 C.C.R. section 11069 defines the process as timely, good-faith communication and requires both sides to exchange essential information without delay or obstruction.

Under section 11069(b), distinguish three notice pathways: (1) a request from an applicant or employee with a known disability or medical condition; (2) need for accommodation communicated by a third party or apparent through observation; and (3) exhaustion of specified leave plus an indication from the employee or healthcare provider that further recuperative leave or another accommodation is necessary. Record both the alleged knowledge event and the particular employee or provider communication; an employer's mere awareness of a diagnosis or completed leave is not, by itself, proof of notice of a further accommodation need.

This is more specific than a simple rule that an employee must always utter a particular phrase.

No magic words, but there must be enough notice

Gelfo explains that no magic words are required. The duty can arise when the employer becomes aware of the need to consider accommodation. Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group also shows the other side: where a disability and need were not open or apparent and the employer did not know of them before the employment event, there may be no duty to initiate the process.

Notice therefore is contextual. An employee need not provide a legal conclusion, but ordinary performance difficulty that gives no reason to suspect a disability does not necessarily place the employer on notice. The CRD's sample request forms are optional: use of a particular form is not a statutory trigger, and use of the forms neither insulates an employer from liability nor creates a presumption that discrimination did not occur. CRD guidance (external site).

What good-faith participation requires from the employer#

Section 11069 provides a practical sequence.

The employer should grant the requested accommodation or, after due consideration, reject it and initiate discussion of alternatives. Where needed, the employer may ask for reasonable medical documentation, analyze the job and its essential functions, consult experts, identify potential accommodations, assess effectiveness, and consider the employee's preference while retaining the ability to select another effective option.

If reassignment is considered, the employer may request qualifications and work-history information that helps locate a suitable vacancy, but the reassignment rules in section 11068 still control.

Good faith is not measured by the number of forms sent. A process that repeatedly asks for the same information without explaining its relevance can differ from a focused request for missing functional information. Conversely, an employer that identifies the unanswered question, allows supplementation, discusses alternatives, and evaluates the actual job has stronger evidence of good faith even if the preferred option is rejected. Section 11069(c)(8) requires consideration of the employee's preference but permits selection of a different effective option. That discretion is not license to select a merely nominal alternative that fails to address the established work barrier.

What good-faith participation requires from the employee#

The employee must also cooperate.

When the disability or need is not obvious, section 11069 permits the employer to request reasonable documentation. The employee should provide enough information to confirm the disability within FEHA's framework and explain the need for accommodation. Functional limitations can be important because accommodation addresses work barriers, not merely diagnoses.

If reassignment is being considered, the employee can be required to provide education, qualifications, and work history needed to identify suitable positions.

An employee can weaken an interactive-process claim by refusing to provide reasonably necessary information, rejecting effective options without explanation, abandoning communication, or insisting exclusively on a legally unnecessary option while refusing to discuss alternatives. In Wentworth v. Regents (external site), the court evaluated the employer's actual offers and the information the employee and treating providers communicated about functional limits; the result cannot be recast as an across-the-board right to demand a diagnosis or as a rule absolving the employer of its own dialogue obligations.

But the regulation also protects against treating disability itself as noncooperation. It states that an employee's mental or physical inability to engage in the process does not itself constitute a breach of either side's obligation. Representatives may participate, and direct communication is preferred but not mandatory.

Medical documentation: what may be requested

California's regulation draws a line between reasonable documentation and an open-ended demand for medical history.

When disability or need is not obvious and sufficient documentation has not already been provided, the employer may request documentation confirming the existence of a covered condition and the need for accommodation. Documentation may describe functional limitations relevant to the accommodation.

Section 11069(d)(1), (5) generally seeks existence of a covered limitation and its accommodation nexus, not disclosure of the nature or medical cause of the disability. A reasonable provider submission ordinarily identifies the provider and credentials and explains what job-related adjustment is needed; relevant functional limits may be supplied without disclosing unrelated diagnoses or records. Once reasonable documentation is received, section 11069(c)(3) limits inquiries into underlying medical cause, subject to the distinct safeguards in section 11071 and permissible second opinions. The regulation cautions against seeking unrelated documentation, including, in most cases, complete medical files. An employee likewise should not assume that a bare assertion of a condition establishes every requested limitation. 2 C.C.R. § 11069(c)–(d) (external site).

What happens when documentation is incomplete or ambiguous

A common breakdown occurs when a provider note is too general.

Section 11069 does not instruct the employer simply to declare the file incomplete. If the information needs clarification, the employer must identify the issues needing clarification, specify what further information is needed, and allow a reasonable time to produce supplemental information.

Only after explaining an initial deficiency and allowing a timely opportunity to supplement may the employer, if documentation remains insufficient, require an evaluation by an appropriate provider of its choice under section 11069(d)(5)(C). Section 11069(d)(7) makes such an examination job-related and consistent with business necessity and limits it to the functional limits requiring accommodation; subdivision (d)(8) requires the employer to pay the costs and allow time off. This is not blanket authorization for serial examinations or unrelated medical review. Distinguish this route from a fitness-for-duty examination justified under another law (Roadmap 017).

Under subdivision (d)(6), insufficient documentation does not automatically excuse accommodations already supported by the information supplied; a further accommodation need not be supplied when no accommodation is supported. A note saying "may return" might not resolve a genuine dispute over a specified essential duty, but a broad demand for complete records may exceed the issue. Record precisely which accommodation was supported at each stage, not just whether a final form was complete.

The process is tied to essential functions

Accommodation cannot be assessed without knowing the job.

Section 11069 directs the employer, when needed, to analyze the particular job and its essential functions. That prevents abstract decisions based on job title alone.

For clinicians, essential functions may include functions directly tied to patient care, prescribing, emergency response, physical presence, communication, documentation, or on-call coverage. Administrative habits are not automatically essential merely because they are longstanding. Conversely, a requested adjustment cannot simply delete an essential clinical duty and relabel the result accommodation.

The process should identify the specific barrier and the specific function.

Reassignment requires a real search, not a slogan

When accommodation in the current position is ineffective, reassignment to an actual vacant position for which the employee is qualified may become relevant. Nadaf-Rahrov and 2 C.C.R. § 11068(d) require attention to the employer's affirmative vacancy search and the employee's qualifications; they do not establish a duty to invent a job, displace an incumbent, or remove essential functions. Conditions of promotion, seniority, equivalent positions and undue hardship must be assessed under the specific subsection and actual facts, not assumed away. The parties should identify whether the accessible vacancy universe belongs to the employing entity, a genuinely covered joint employer, or an unrelated affiliate.

An employee cannot establish an interactive-process case merely by saying "something else must have existed." But an employer that controls vacancy information is often better positioned to identify jobs. The parties should exchange the information each uniquely possesses.

The search should be documented by date, location, job title, essential functions, qualifications, pay or status implications, and reason an identified vacancy was or was not feasible.

Leave exhaustion is not automatically the end of accommodation

Section 11069 expressly recognizes that exhaustion of workers' compensation, CFRA, FMLA, employer, or other leave can itself create a point at which the employer must consider whether further recuperative leave or another accommodation remains necessary.

That rule prevents an analytical shortcut: "protected leave ended, therefore employment can end." The end of one leave entitlement can be the beginning of a separate accommodation analysis.

This does not mean indefinite leave is always reasonable. In Shirvanyan (external site), finite leave was supported for a wrist injury where evidence permitted a likely return, but not for a separate shoulder injury lacking a reliable expected return timeframe; the court also rejected an unsupported theory of vacant alternative work. A leave proposal should therefore identify likely duration, medical basis for return or reassessment, essential-function ability on return, and any particularized undue hardship. The absence of a precise return date is not a universal automatic bar, but speculative multi-year leave is not established merely by labeling it accommodation.

Return-to-work changes can restart or continue the dialogue

An interactive process can evolve.

A new provider note, changed restrictions, a failed accommodation, a changed job, or objective new safety information can require renewed discussion. Lin v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (external site) held that granting initial requested accommodations did not dispose of a FEHA claim where evidence permitted the inference that supervisors knew the initial arrangement was failing and an additional option (lighter assignments) was needed but never meaningfully explored. Its procedural posture was reversal of summary adjudication, not a finding of liability after trial. Track what changed, who knew, which additional option had become apparent, and when; a completed earlier dialogue is not permanent immunity, but neither does every unchanged circumstance require restarting from scratch.

Who caused the breakdown?

The ultimate focus is objective conduct. Gelfo locates responsibility in the participant who failed to act in good faith. Later cases sharpen a two-sided analysis: whether the employee communicated enough about the condition and work need, and whether the employer evaluated available responses rather than insisting upon a preferred administrative pathway. Wentworth (external site) illustrates an adverse record where the employee did not tell the employer he could not perform a particular duty and had received options, while Lin (external site) illustrates a triable employer failure notwithstanding initial accommodations. Neither case can be applied without reconstructing employer awareness on the actual dates.

The question is not who was more polite. A courteous but obstructive process can fail. A tense exchange can still be legally sufficient if the necessary information is exchanged and effective alternatives are considered.

Useful questions include:

• Did the employer respond to the request?
• Did it identify missing information?
• Did it consider alternatives?
• Did it analyze essential functions?
• Did it search for reassignment if appropriate?
• Did the employee provide requested functional information?
• Did the employee explain why proposed alternatives were ineffective?
• Did either party stop responding?
• Did one side impose a new condition unrelated to accommodation?
• Did the employer make a decision before the requested information could reasonably be supplied?

A reasonable accommodation still must have been available#

California case law imposes an important limit.

Nadaf-Rahrov held that an interactive-process claim requires evidence that a reasonable accommodation was available. Scotch v. Art Institute of California developed that relationship further, and the 2024 published decision Miller v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reiterated that an employer cannot be liable for failure to engage where the employee cannot identify an accommodation that would have been available had the process occurred.

This does not make the process irrelevant. It means damages liability is tied to a lost opportunity for effective accommodation rather than process for process's sake.

The strongest proof therefore identifies the accommodation, the date it was objectively available, and its evidentiary basis—a vacant job posting and qualifications, a feasible scheduling modification, task reassignment that preserves essential functions, or medically supported finite leave. Shirvanyan (external site) separated two injuries on the evidence of available accommodation; Miller (external site) affirmed summary adjudication where available reasonable alternatives were not shown. Mere conjecture that dialogue would have located an option is insufficient. The employee's required proof at litigation is distinct from the employer's duty to search and communicate when the process should have occurred.

Process and outcome must remain separate

An employer can participate in good faith and still lawfully conclude no effective reasonable accommodation exists. An employee may cooperate yet be unable to perform essential functions even with accommodation. Conversely, a late offer can affect causation for earlier missed opportunities, especially when a vacancy or finite leave option was available only during an earlier window.

Separate implementation failure from discussion failure. Brown v. LAUSD (external site), relying on A.M. v. Albertsons, held that failure to carry out an accommodation already agreed upon, without more, pleaded failure to accommodate rather than a new independent interactive-process breach. Where changed restrictions or known failure of the original arrangement require fresh discussion, Lin supplies the contrasting principle. Ask what remained to be determined—not simply whether an agreed benefit was withheld.

For analysis, use separate columns:

• process event;
• accommodation option;
• information available at that time;
• response;
• unresolved question;
• party responsible for the next step;
• whether delay affected employment or an available accommodation.

Timeliness is part of good faith

Section 12940(n) expressly uses the word “timely.” The law does not impose one universal number of days for every accommodation process, because some requests are simple and others require medical clarification, technical research, vacancy review, or operational analysis. But unexplained delay can matter.

A useful chronology should distinguish productive time from dead time. Productive time can include waiting for information the employee was reasonably asked to supply, obtaining a specialist opinion, testing equipment, or searching vacancies. Dead time can include an unanswered request sitting in an inbox, repeated routing between departments, or a decisionmaker refusing to identify what is missing.

Delay also should be connected to consequence. If the employee continues working safely under an interim arrangement, the effect of delay may differ from a case in which the employee remains unpaid or loses a time-sensitive vacancy while the process stalls. Interim accommodations can therefore be important evidence even when they are not the final solution.

Representatives, providers and third-party communications

California regulation expressly allows the interactive process to involve the individual's representative. Direct communication is preferred but not required. That matters where disability itself makes communication difficult, where a union representative participates, or where a health care provider supplies functional information.

Third-party involvement does not relieve either principal party of responsibility. An employer cannot necessarily outsource good faith to a vendor and then remain unaware of what the vendor is doing. An employee cannot necessarily treat a provider's failure to send requested information as though the employer received it. The record should track who was authorized to communicate, what was actually sent, when it was received, and who was responsible for the next step.

Repeated or evolving accommodations

The interactive process can recur. A condition can change. A trial accommodation can fail. A new manager can alter job duties. A temporary restriction can end. A leave can extend. A new technology can create an option that did not exist before.

A prior process does not necessarily resolve a later request, but an employer need not restart from zero when the material facts have not changed. Section 11069(f) allows requests for medical documentation substantiating the continued need for accommodations extending beyond one year on a yearly basis; this is not general authority for arbitrary monthly recertification or unrestricted medical histories. Clarification and examinations still must meet applicable regulatory limits. Record the old accommodation's terms and actual duration before treating a later form as routine. 2 C.C.R. § 11069(f) (external site).

This is particularly important for episodic conditions. An employee may perform fully for long periods and need a targeted adjustment only during episodes. The process should address the work barrier presented at the relevant time rather than assuming permanent incapacity.

A process audit

For a counsel-ready file, construct a table with these fields for every meaningful communication:

The table should include adverse facts. If the employee failed to respond for three weeks, record it. If HR failed to answer a complete request, record that too. The value of the audit is that it exposes the actual breakdown rather than the party's characterization of it.

A second table can list every accommodation considered, whether it was available, why it was accepted or rejected, and the evidence supporting that decision. This directly addresses the California requirement that an available reasonable accommodation must be identified for liability.

Medical files and information flows during the process

Section 11069(g) requires interactive-process medical information to be maintained on forms and in medical files separate from personnel files, with specified exceptions. Supervisors may receive job restrictions and needed accommodations; appropriate first-aid/safety staff may receive emergency-treatment information; investigating government officials may obtain relevant materials. Distribution of detailed diagnoses across scheduling, credentialing, contractor, or security systems is not authorized merely because those systems touch an accommodation request. For a disputed multi-entity process, document both authorized recipients and what each actor actually accessed—without assuming that every recipient was an employer or that every disclosure was lawful. This paragraph is a regulatory requirement; any finding that a specific disclosure violated it would require separate evidence. 2 C.C.R. § 11069(g) (external site).

Potentially relevant defendants and decisionmakers#

Section 12940(n) applies to the covered employer or other covered entity. Individual supervisors ordinarily should not be assumed to be personally liable merely because they participated in the process; defendant rules differ by FEHA theory.

In a multi-entity structure, identify who actually held each function:

• receipt of requests;
• medical-documentation review;
• essential-function definition;
• schedule authority;
• leave approval;
• vacancy access;
• reassignment authority;
• safety assessment;
• final employment decision.

Roadmaps 003–005 address employer identity and decisionmaker attribution.

Administrative prerequisites and limitation periods#

A FEHA interactive-process claim ordinarily proceeds through CRD's administrative framework.

Government Code § 12960(e)(5) generally supplies a three-year CRD complaint period for FEHA Article 1 employment violations, subject to specifically enumerated extensions; § 12965(c) ordinarily supplies a one-year period from the right-to-sue notice to bring the private FEHA action, subject to the statutory exceptions and applicable tolling. The two clocks are not interchangeable. Section 12960(f), as amended by SB 477 (Stats. 2025, ch. 321; approved October 3, 2025; effective January 1, 2026), provides tolling from CRD complaint filing until the department files suit or until one year after the specified closure notice, including notice following a timely departmental appeal. SB 477 amended an existing tolling provision; it did not first create § 12960(f), which already appeared in SB 807 (Stats. 2021, ch. 278). Subdivision (f) says this tolling is retroactive but does not revive already-lapsed claims. Section 12965 also has distinct agency-right-to-sue and EEOC/CRD deferral provisions. Gov. Code § 12960 (2025 amended text) (external site); § 12965 (external site); 2025 SB 477, chaptered text reproduction (external site).

For every request, alleged obstruction, denial, termination, CRD filing, closure, appeal and right-to-sue notice, record an actual date and proof of receipt. Continuing dialogue does not automatically reset the clock for an earlier discrete event; nor does an administrative appeal necessarily extend deadlines unless it meets the statute's conditions. Do not compute a case-specific last day without the actual notices, filings and applicable historical law.

See Roadmap 008 for the five-component deadline method.

Evidence#

The evidence is usually a communication record.

Preserve:

• the first accommodation request or notice;
• medical or functional documentation supplied;
• the employer's requests for clarification;
• explanations of why information was insufficient;
• response deadlines;
• alternative accommodations proposed by each side;
• essential-function analyses;
• vacancy searches;
• leave extensions;
• meeting notes;
• HR case logs;
• return-to-work forms;
• decisions and reasons;
• evidence of changed circumstances;
• proof of nonresponse or obstruction.

A complete record should preserve unfavorable communications too. Separately preserve each version of job descriptions and restriction letters, HR portal submission/receipt logs, the employer's explanation of deficient paperwork, any written accommodation actually approved, dates a vacancy opened or closed, and the evidence showing who could authorize interim measures. Where a provider note arrives after adverse action, do not backdate employer knowledge. Keep originals and a privilege-protected chain of custody rather than publishing raw medical exhibits.

Records to obtain lawfully#

Potential records include personnel records available under Labor Code section 1198.5, signed employment-related instruments under section 432, wage/entity records under section 226, policy versions, job descriptions, accommodation procedures, leave policies, vacancy records, organization charts, and public contracts or corporate records relevant to authority.

Medical information should be handled carefully. Section 11069(g)'s separate-medical-file rule and any applicable patient confidentiality, employee privacy, trade-secret, protective-order or privilege limits require a source-by-source access and disclosure analysis. Do not publish underlying records, names of patients or uninvolved clinicians, provider notes, accommodation medical forms, internal personnel logs, or privileged advice on this public-facing Roadmap. Preserve lawful originals under restricted access; do not obtain records through unauthorized system access. This manuscript does not establish what any particular employer held or disclosed.

Favorable and adverse facts#

Facts that can favor an employee include a clear request; longstanding successful accommodation; prompt functional documentation; employer silence; repeated demands for information already supplied; refusal to identify what remained missing; failure to consider obvious alternatives; no vacancy search where reassignment was relevant; or a decision made before reasonable supplementation time expired.

Facts that can favor the employer include unclear notice; documentation that never identifies a limitation or need; repeated good-faith requests for necessary information; employee nonresponse; rejection of effective alternatives; absence of any available accommodation; completed vacancy search; or evidence the employee could not perform essential functions under any reasonable option.

Neither list decides a case.

Likely defenses#

Common defenses include:

• no known disability or medical condition;
• no accommodation request and no circumstance triggering employer initiation;
• employee did not provide reasonably necessary documentation;
• employer timely explored alternatives;
• effective accommodation was offered;
• no reasonable accommodation was available;
• no vacant position existed after a reasonable, documented search within the proper employment entity;
• employee caused the breakdown despite a particularized lawful request for missing information;
• an already agreed-upon accommodation was not implemented, creating a potential § 12940(m)(1) theory but not necessarily a separate § 12940(n) theory (Brown);
• no objectively available accommodation existed even if the exchange could have been better (Shirvanyan, Miller);
• claimed delay caused no loss because no accommodation existed;
• claim is untimely or administratively unexhausted;
• wrong entity was named.

A safety explanation must still be tied to the period, duties and evidence in dispute. The published Sexton v. Apple Studios LLC (March 28, 2025) (external site) dismissed an interactive-process claim in a fact-intensive production-safety/vaccination record where no reasonable alternative was shown and the employer had considered the request. Its anti-SLAPP posture and pandemic-specific record do not establish that any healthcare employer may bypass individual assessment or that every safety exclusion is lawful. Direct-threat criteria are separately addressed in Roadmap 018.

Causation and damages#

The interactive-process theory should identify what the process failure actually caused.

If the employee cannot identify an effective accommodation that would have been available, California cases can defeat the claim. If an available accommodation was lost because one side prematurely ended the dialogue, the causation analysis is different.

Damages must be tied to the statutory violation, legally available remedies and competent proof. A defective process does not automatically establish backpay, emotional-distress damages, reinstatement or every downstream loss. Shirvanyan (external site) illustrates that multiple claimed injuries and accommodations can require separate causation findings. Section 12965(c)(6) permits prevailing-party fee awards subject to its plaintiff/defendant asymmetry, but counsel must assess allocation, reasonableness and procedural compliance; this is not a promised fee recovery.

Discovery#

Discovery can focus on the decision chain and process architecture:

• HR or accommodation case-management logs;
• internal notes about the request;
• policy and training material;
• documentation standards;
• communications with medical-review personnel;
• job descriptions and essential-function analyses;
• vacancy databases and search parameters;
• reassignment approvals;
• leave and return-to-work workflows;
• audit trails showing who changed work status;
• delegated authority between entities;
• comparable accommodation practices where legally relevant.

Privilege, medical confidentiality, privacy, proportionality, and protective orders can limit discovery.

CFMG/Wellpath-specific relevance#

A CFMG/Wellpath employment setting can make the interactive process appear unified when authority is actually distributed. This is a hypothetical attribution problem, not a factual finding of joint employment or any entity's wrongdoing.

The public-record question is not merely whose logo appeared on an ADA form. It is who had authority to grant the accommodation, change the schedule, extend leave, identify a vacancy, define essential physician duties, evaluate safety, restore access, or return the employee to the worksite.

A Wellpath employee could administer HR communications without that fact alone proving Wellpath was the FEHA employer. A CFMG officer or physician board could hold formal authority while relying on information assembled elsewhere. The Roadmap therefore requires function-by-function attribution and does not infer employer identity from shared branding.

No private personnel, medical, EEOC, or internal litigation material is used on this public page to prove how any specific CFMG/Wellpath interactive process occurred.

Primary cases, statutes and regulations#

Related roadmaps#

• Roadmap 012 — ADA Disability Discrimination Against Employees and Physicians.
• Roadmap 013 — FEHA Disability Discrimination.
• Roadmap 014 — Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation.
• Roadmap 016 — Return-to-Work and Medical-Clearance Disputes.
• Roadmap 017 — Fitness-for-Duty Examinations and Employer Medical Inquiries.
• Roadmap 018 — The “Direct Threat” Defense and Safety-Based Exclusion From Work.
• Roadmap 019 — ADA/FEHA Retaliation.
• Roadmap 024 — FMLA and CFRA Medical Leave Claims.

What this page cannot do#

This Roadmap cannot decide whether a communication constituted a request, whether a disability or need was sufficiently obvious, whether medical documentation was adequate, whether either side acted in good faith, whether a vacancy existed, whether a proposed accommodation was effective, or who caused a breakdown.

Those questions require the complete communication history, actual job functions, medical-function information, accommodation options, entity authority, and chronology.