Disabled by Association: California Federal Courts Consider Whether FEHA Supports Workplace Accommodations Based on Another Person's Disability

In 2025, three federal district courts in California addressed the same open question and reached a similar conclusion: that under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), California employers may be required to engage in the interactive process and potentially provide reasonable accommodations to caretaker employees who are not disabled themselves, but who request accommodations to care for other disabled persons. This requirement goes beyond the prohibition of discriminating against employees because they are associated with disabled individuals and has practical implications for how employers need to evaluate leave requests, schedule modifications, and other accommodations sought by employee caregivers.

This Is Only About Disability Accommodations Under FEHA, Not The Federal ADA

This development is specific to California’s FEHA and it does not arise under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The distinction stems from how the two statutes are structured.

Under the ADA, the prohibition relating to discriminating against an employee for “association” with someone who is disabled appears only in the anti-discrimination provision, not in the accommodation provisions. Federal courts have therefore consistently held that the ADA does not require accommodation of a non-disabled employee based on associational disability.

FEHA arguably allows a different approach. California Government Code Section 12926(o) defines the statute’s list of protected characteristics, including “physical disability” and “mental disability,” to encompass “a perception that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.” Some Courts have interpreted this definition to apply to the entirety of FEHA’s unlawful practices provisions, including Section 12940(m), which requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for “the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee,” and Section 12940(n), which requires employers to engage in an interactive process to determine effective reasonable accommodations for “an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability.” However, although that interpretation is not universally accepted and remains subject to further judicial clarification, employers should be aware that courts are extending the accommodation requirement this way.

**The Backstory: Castro-Ramirez and the Unresolved Question of Associational Disability Accommodation**

This issue has been percolating for years. In 2016, the California Court of Appeal in Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., 2 Cal. App. 5th 1028, held that FEHA supports a cause of action for associational disability discrimination. But the court expressly declined to decide whether FEHA also requires employers to accommodate employees based on an associational disability, suggesting only that Section 12940(m) “may reasonably be interpreted to require accommodation based on the employee’s association with a physically disabled person.” In the years that followed, a handful of unpublished decisions concluded the opposite, reasoning that the accommodation provisions do not expressly incorporate the broader definition of disability from Section 12926(o). Meanwhile, in late 2020 and early 2021, the Fair Employment and Housing Council itself issued a Request for Public Input on this very question, signaling that even the regulatory body overseeing FEHA viewed the issue as unsettled.

The 2025 Trilogy: Acosta, Head, and De Wit

In 2025, three federal district courts in California squarely confronted the open question and each concluded that FEHA does require accommodation and interactive process engagement for associational disability claims.

Acosta v. NAS Insurance Services, LLC (C.D. Cal.)

In Acosta, the plaintiff requested reduced hours, a flexible schedule, and full-time remote work to care for her son, who had been diagnosed with a severe developmental delay. Her employer denied every request, telling her that “accommodations are for employees who have a disability, and do not extend to dependents of employees for whom the employee is a caretaker.” She alleged she was eventually constructively terminated. The court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss, including claims for failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to provide reasonable accommodation under FEHA, holding that Sections 12940(m) and (n) “embrace employees perceived to be associated with a person who is disabled” and rejecting the argument that ADA precedent should control.

Head v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (N.D. Cal.)

In Head, a Costco employee exhausted his FMLA/CFRA leave and Costco’s one-year leave policy while caring for his wife, who had cancer. When told he must return to work or resign, he resigned and Costco later declined to rehire him after his wife passed away. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the failure to accommodate and interactive process claims, allowing them to proceed on an associational disability theory.

De Wit v. Amazon.com Services, LLC (C.D. Cal.)

In De Wit, the plaintiff took intermittent leave to care for his mother, who suffered from dementia, and was terminated after a disputed leave calculation resulted in negative unpaid time off under Amazon’s attendance policy. The court granted summary judgment for Amazon on the facts, but agreed that claims for failure to accommodate and engage in the interactive process may be brought on an associational disability theory. The court emphasized that Amazon had approved multiple leave requests, communicated with the employee, and applied its policies consistently, which were facts that supported its defense despite recognizing the viability of the legal theory.

What This Means for Employers

These decisions are not binding on California state courts as the California Supreme Court has not yet addressed the issue. However, this case trend suggests that at least some courts may be receptive to associational disability claims based on a failure to accommodate or engage in the interactive process. In this developing landscape, employers confronting caregiving-related requests may face increased scrutiny regarding whether any individualized assessment or interactive process occurred, even as the scope of any obligation remains unsettled.

If you have questions about how these developments may affect your workplace policies or about a specific accommodation request, please contact any member of the Coblentz Employment Group.

This alert is intended to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice. Each situation is fact-specific, and you should consult with counsel regarding your particular circumstances.