Los Angeles Failure to Accommodate Lawyer

We Represent Los Angeles Workers When Employers Ignore the Accommodation Duty

Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), failure to accommodate is its own legal claim, distinct from a general disability discrimination case. It arises when an employer denies a reasonable accommodation for a known disability or refuses to engage in the back-and-forth communication the law requires. Both duties exist independently, and an employer who violates either one can be held liable. If your employer ignored your request, stalled, or terminated you without exploring options, you may have grounds to pursue a claim.

We represent workers throughout Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley from our office in Van Nuys. Laurel Employment Law, APC takes only employee-side cases, so every strategy, document review, and negotiation we conduct is focused entirely on protecting you.

Why Los Angeles Workers Choose Laurel Employment Law, APC

Founder and CEO Joshua White spent more than a decade as a corporate executive, including serving as Head of Strategy and General Counsel for a large multinational corporation, before founding this firm. That background means we understand how employers think about accommodation requests, how they document their decisions, and where their defenses are vulnerable. Joshua White was named one of the Daily Journal’s Top Labor and Employment Lawyers of 2026.

Because we represent workers only, there’s no conflict pulling our approach in two directions. Our singular focus is holding employers accountable.

Two Separate Duties Employers Owe Under FEHA

FEHA imposes two distinct obligations on California employers. The first, under Government Code section 12940(m), is the duty to provide a reasonable accommodation for a known physical or mental disability unless doing so would create an undue hardship, meaning significant difficulty or expense. The second, under Government Code section 12940(n), is the duty to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process to identify what accommodation would work. An employer can violate either duty independently, even if it made some effort to satisfy the other.

The Interactive Process Requirement

The interactive process is the required communication between employer and employee to determine whether accommodation is possible and what form it should take. California courts, including the 2020 decision in Shirvanyan v. Los Angeles Community College District, require an employee to show that a reasonable accommodation was actually available at the time the interactive process should have occurred. That showing matters, and it’s the kind of case-specific analysis we work through with every client.

How California’s Disability Definition Differs from Federal Law

California’s definition of disability is broader than the federal standard. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that a condition substantially limit a major life activity to qualify for protection. FEHA sets a lower bar: a condition need only limit a major life activity, a threshold confirmed in Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club (2003). More employees qualify for protection here than they would under a federal analysis alone.