Sometimes an employer might argue that because an employee’s disability is not constant in a sense that sometimes that employee experiences the symptoms that limit his abilities and sometimes he doesn’t, this means that he is not really disabled and is therefore not entitled to interactive process, reasonable accommodations and other disability rights under ADA and FEHA.
However, this approach by the employers has been expressly rejected by California courts. For instance, in American National Ins. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1982), the California Supreme Court concluded that the law clearly was designed to prevent employer from acting arbitrarily against physical condition that, whether actually or potentially handicapping, may present no current job disability or job-related health risk. See also Sterling Transit Co. v Fair Employment Practice Com. (1981).
This approach makes a lot of sense because many disabilities and serious health conditions have very serious recurring symptoms even if the pain or limitations are not constant. The most common such conditions are high blood pressure, migraines, and diabetes. It would be non-sensical not to consider a diabetic person or a person who periodically suffers from debilitating migraine headaches a disabled person within the meaning of ADA / FEHA just because he doesn’t experience the diabetes symptoms all the time. Like with other disabilities, a temporary disability, such as one of the above conditions and alike, requires flexible, individualized approach under the law and a good faith interaction between employers and employees suffering from such temporary disabilities in order of find effective accommodations.