Marisol has worked at a bustling Los Angeles law firm for seven years as a legal assistant. She is serious about her job and meticulous with her responsibilities. Then came a sudden diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Fatigue and coordination issues meant that some days she struggled to meet her typical pace. She notified HR and handed over a doctor’s note recommending that she work from home two days per week and adjust her schedule when flares occurred.
Her employer said they would “look into it.” Weeks passed without follow-up. Her supervisor said the firm could not disrupt schedules. Marisol began exhausting sick days, then found that she was handling fewer assignments, and her colleagues were no longer inviting her to meetings. Her performance review flagged declines in productivity, without acknowledgment of her condition or delay.
Marisol’s story is not unique. Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), she should have had powerful protections. When an employee with a known disability requests assistance, the law mandates a timely, good faith dialogue. What is called the “interactive process”, in order to identify reasonable accommodations. Every step in that process is critical, and every failure can shift the balance of power in a courtroom.
What FEHA Requires: The Interactive Process
Pursuant to the FEHA, the interactive process which must occur when a disability or medical condition becomes known. The employer must respond without delay and participate in a two-way conversation with the employee to identify effective accommodations which enable the employee to perform essential job functions.
This process involves understanding the limitations, exploring potential solutions, such as schedule adjustments, assistive technology, remote work, job-sharing, or physical modifications, and assessing whether those accommodations are reasonable or cause undue hardship. An employer cannot simply deny the request; they must have the conversation and document it.
Legally, failure to engage in this process is a separate FEHA violation. Courts consider not only a refusal to accommodate, but the refusal to even engage in the required interactive exchange.
Consequences of Failing to Engage
Sometimes employers intend to help but fail to act fast enough. Other times they wait until medical leave is exhausted and then point to poor performance or lack of availability as justification for termination. Either way, case law shows that antagonism toward the process often triggers liability.
For example, in Scotch v. Art Institute of California, an instructor developed Bell’s palsy and requested reduced teaching duties. He was instead terminated. The jury awarded $6.9 million, including punitive damages, finding the school refused to engage in good faith.
Another case, A.M. v. Albertsons, involved a grocery cashier who had an accommodation for restroom breaks due to her disability. Her request was denied, and she was humiliated when she could not comply. She won $200,000 when the employer was found to have failed to provide even a simple accommodation.
Even where an employer believes the request to be unduly costly or disruptive, not engaging in the process is itself unlawful. They must initiate dialogue before asserting that no safe accommodation exists.
The Interactive Process in Action
A few months after notifying HR, Marisol began missing task deadlines due to fatigue. She requested a company-supplied ergonomic keyboard and reduced workload. The company did not respond to the medical note, nor did they call a meeting. Instead, the firm assigned her workload to a junior assistant “temporarily.” Her day-to-day role vanished. When her interim evaluation downgraded her performance, Marisol drew a clear line: “I have a disability and asked for accommodation. You never engaged me. I want to know why.”
That key moment, her direct follow-up, should have triggered the interactive process under FEHA. The firm should have asked what tasks she could still perform, what tools might assist her, whether others could share functions, or whether an extended leave or remote schedule could accommodate her health needs. That failure may prove costly in court.
Why It Matters
By ignoring the interactive process, employers risk lawsuits, compensatory and punitive damages, and reputational harm. When they instead engage early and in good faith, they promote inclusion, retain skilled workers, and avoid legal exposure.
For employees like Marisol, a timely accommodation could be the difference between continued employment and lost livelihood. For employers, compliance is not just legal necessity, it is good business practice.
The blog published by Fairchild Employment Law is available for informational purposes only, is not considered legal advice on any subject matter, and is not meant to guarantee an outcome. By viewing blog posts, the reader understands there is no attorney-client relationship between the reader and the blog publisher. The blog should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney, and readers are urged to consult their own legal counsel on any specific legal questions concerning a specific situation.