Disability-Based Associational Discrimination in California Workplaces
Introduction
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or applicants because of their association with a person who has a disability. This protection covers not only actual disability, but also a perceived disability. Gov. Code § 12926(o). Liability attaches even if the employee is not disabled, but faces adverse action due to their relationship with a disabled individual. Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 635, 655–60 (2013).
Legal Standard: Essential Elements
To prevail on an associational discrimination claim, a plaintiff must prove:
The defendant was an employer or other covered entity under FEHA.
The plaintiff was an employee or job applicant.
The plaintiff was associated (e.g., family member, companion) with a person who had a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition.
The employer took an adverse employment action (such as discharge, refusal to hire, or other negative consequences) against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff could perform the essential job duties.
The plaintiff’s association with the disabled person was a substantial motivating reason for the employer’s decision.
The plaintiff was harmed.
The employer’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
(Gov. Code § 12926(d); Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group, 15 Cal.5th 268, 291 (2023)).
Types of Associational Discrimination Claims
Courts recognize several common patterns:
Expense: The associated disabled person’s condition increases employer costs, such as health care expenses.
Disability by Association: The employer fears the employee might become disabled because of genetic or contagious conditions present in the associate.
Distraction: The employee’s attention to the associate’s needs affects work but not to the extent that accommodation is required.
Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., 2 Cal.App.5th 1028, 1042 (2016); Rope, 220 Cal.App.4th at 657.
Substantial Motivating Reason
Discriminatory motive must be substantial—not just incidental—in the employer’s decision. Passing thoughts or unrelated statements are not enough. Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203, 232 (2013); Castro-Ramirez, 2 Cal.App.5th at 1037.
Practical Guidance for California Employers
Employers should:
Train supervisors to recognize and avoid adverse decisions based on an employee’s relationships or associations.
Ensure that adverse actions are based on legitimate business reasons, not on fears, stereotypes, or increased costs arising from an employee’s association.
Document nondiscriminatory reasons for all employment decisions.
Avoid assumptions about future disability or genetic risks in connection to associates.
Consistent, fair workplace practices reduce the risk of associational discrimination claims.
Bottom Line
California law clearly forbids employers from taking negative action against employees because of their association with a disabled person. This rule applies to several types of workplace scenarios and requires careful attention to motivation and business rationale. Employers who treat all employees fairly and base decisions only on job performance—not on relationships, expenses, or genetic fears—are much less likely to face liability or legal disputes under FEHA.
Citations
Gov. Code §§ 12926(o), 12940(a); Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group, 15 Cal.5th 268, 291 (2023); Rope v. Auto-Chlor Sys. of Washington, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 635, 655–60 (2013); Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., 2 Cal.App.5th 1028, 1042 (2016); Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203, 232 (2013).
