A serious medical diagnosis changes everything. It alters your routines, affects your energy, and often requires doctor appointments, treatments, or lifestyle adjustments. But one thing it should not do, at least under California law, is cost you your job.
Yet, for many workers across the state, that is exactly what happens. An employee informs their supervisor of a cancer diagnosis, a neurological condition, or an autoimmune disorder. Instead of being met with support and understanding, they begin to experience isolation, a sudden increase in scrutiny, or even termination. This kind of treatment is not just unjust. It is likely illegal.
Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), workers are protected from discrimination based on actual or perceived disability. The law broadly defines “disability” to include physical or mental impairments that limit a major life activity. That includes diagnoses such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, lupus, and many chronic illnesses. Employers with five or more employees must not only refrain from discrimination, but must also engage in a good faith “interactive process” to determine whether reasonable accommodations can be made.
The legal landscape in California offers strong protections, but many employees do not know their rights until it is too late.
When Illness Triggers Unlawful Treatment
California courts have repeatedly emphasized that once an employer is aware, either directly or indirectly, that an employee has a disability, they must begin a meaningful dialogue about accommodations. This conversation must happen in good faith, and it must be documented. A failure to do so is not a minor oversight. It is a standalone legal violation.
In the case of Scotch v. Art Institute of California, an employee diagnosed with Bell’s palsy requested a reduced teaching load while he recovered. Instead of engaging with him, the employer fired him. The California Court of Appeal ruled that the employer failed to participate in the interactive process and allowed his case to proceed. The ruling reinforced that avoiding this discussion is not only inconsiderate, it is illegal under FEHA.
Another key case, A.M. v. Albertsons, involved a grocery store employee who suffered from a medical condition that required frequent restroom use. She asked her manager for accommodations, but her request was denied. When she attempted to take unscheduled breaks, she was disciplined and eventually terminated. The California Court of Appeal foundthat the employer failed to reasonably accommodate her disability and upheld a significant damages award. That case made clear that even simple accommodations, like bathroom breaks, cannot be refused without considering alternatives.
These cases illustrate how courts evaluate both the behavior of employers and the context surrounding termination. If an employee is fired shortly after disclosing a diagnosis or requesting time off for treatment, the timing alone can serve as evidence of discriminatory motive. Employers cannot hide behind neutral-sounding justifications when their conduct suggests otherwise.
A Legal Obligation, Not a Courtesy
One of the most common mistakes employers make is assuming that medical leave or reduced duties are optional favors. But under California law, they are not optional. FEHA requires employers to engage in an individualized assessment to determine whether a reasonable accommodation can allow the employee to perform the essential functions of the job.
In Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank, the court made it clear that an employer’s obligation does not end with a simple denial. The employer must explore alternatives, consider modified duties, or evaluate whether leave, remote work, or reassignment could be feasible. The ruling established that even large and well-resourced employers like banks cannot ignore or bypass the interactive process.
In Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, a sales associate recovering from cancer treatment requested a temporary accommodation so she could return to work in a reduced capacity. Neiman Marcus refused and terminated her. The court held that the employer failed to engage in the required dialogue and had not met its legal obligation to identify open positions or consider modified duties.
These cases serve as a warning to employers and a source of empowerment for workers. The duty to accommodate is not a formality. It is a central component of disability rights law in California.
What Workers Should Know
If you have been diagnosed with a medical condition and you notify your employer, they must treat your disclosure with seriousness and respect. They must not retaliate, isolate, or terminate you for requesting support. They must not ignore your doctor’s notes or delay a conversation about your needs. If you believe you were demoted, harassed, or fired because of your diagnosis, you may have grounds to file a disability discrimination claim.
Many employees hesitate to speak up because they worry about making waves or losing their jobs. But silence often leads to worse outcomes. California law is on your side and the courts have consistently held employers accountable for violating these rights.
Closing Thoughts
Receiving a life-changing diagnosis is hard enough. Losing your job because of that diagnosis should never be part of the experience. Thanks to FEHA and the guidance of California courts, employees are not powerless in the face of discrimination. Legal protections exist, and those protections are strongest when employees know their rights and act quickly.
If you suspect that your employer treated you differently because of your medical condition, or failed to provide accommodations after you asked for help, speaking with an experienced employment law attorney can be the first step toward restoring your rights and your livelihood.