The California FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act) protections against disability discrimination at workplace are quite broad and independent of those under the ADA. The California legislature has stated its intent that “physical disability” be construed, so that employees are protected from discrimination due to actual or perceived physical impairment that is disabling, potentially disabling, or perceived as disabling or potentially disabling. (§ 12926.1, subd. (b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11065, subds. (d)(4)–(6).) If taken literally, as it should be, this language covers a very wide range of actual or potential health conditions. Further, the Legislature
has specifically stated its intent that the California FEHA provide broader protection than under the federal ADA. (§ 12926.1, subd. (c); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11065, subd.(d)(8).)
Under California law, “physical disability” includes, but is not limited to, “any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that does both of thefollowing: (a) affects one or more of the following body systems: neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, including speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin and endocrine; and (b) limits a major life activity, i.e. makes the achievment of a major life activity difficult. “Major life
activity” shall also be broadly construed and includes physical, mental, and social activities, and working.” (§ 12926, subd.(m)(1); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11065, subd. (d)(2)(A).
This broad definition of disability has been recently applied by a the Second Appellate District Court in Brown v LA Unified School Dist. In that case, the employee claimed she suffered from EHS (Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity) – a condition that’s self-reprted and according to at least some sources is not scientifically proven to exist. Her symptoms included chronic pain, headaches, nausea, itching, burning sensations on her skin, ear issues, shortness of breath, inflammation, heart palpitations, respiratory complications, foggy headedness, and fatigue. The Court conluded that those symptoms affect one of more of the body system listed in the California law and limited Brown’s major life activity of working as a teacher. Therefore, she was a qualified individual with a disability, entitled to the appropriate protections.