In many disability discrimination cases, employers defend their case by claiming that there is no evidence that they had any ill will toward the plaintiff-employee because of his disability, i.e. they never said anything negative about his disability, and didn’t do anything else that would suggest that they on purpose wanted to harm that employee because of his disability. However, this argument is not a valid defense to a discrimination claim under California law, because showing ill will is not required for proving disability discrimination under FEHA (California Fair Employment and Housing Act).
A plaintiff alleging disability discrimination can establish the requisite employment intent to discriminate by proving (1) the employer knew that plaintiff had a physical condition that limited a major life activity, or perceived him to have such a condition, and (2) the plaintiff’s actual or perceived condition was a substantial motivating reason for the defendant’s decision to subject the plaintiff to termination. Wallace v. County of Stanislaus (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 109, 129. The Wallace court further explained “California law does not require an employee with an actual or perceived disability to prove that the employer’s adverse employment action was motivated by
animosity or ill will against the employee. Instead, California’s statutory scheme protects employees from an employer’s erroneous or mistaken beliefs about the employee’s physical condition. ([Gov. Code,] § 12926.1, subd. (d).) In short, the Legislature decided that the financial consequences of an employer’s mistaken belief that an employee is unable to safely perform a job’s essential functions should be borne by the employer, not the employee, even if the employer’s mistake was reasonable and made in good faith.”
Thus, an employer who terminates an employee with a qualifying disabling condition because that employer mistakenly believes that the worker is unable to perform his job duties with or without accommodations, or that or that the worker will not be able to return to work, will likely be found liability in a case for disability discrimination / wrongful termination case, brought on that basis.