What Does “Interactive Process” Really Mean?

A common problem that arises in disability discrimination cases is the extent to which the employer engaged in the “interactive process” with an employee to determine a reasonable accommodation for the employee’s disability. Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the employer’s failure to engage in the interactive process is an unlawful employment practice separate from any alleged discriminatory treatment.

Courts have held that the “interactive process” should be informal, non-ritualized, and conducted in good faith between the employer and employee to find an accommodation which will enable the employee to perform the job effectively. The law is clear that the employee must first request an accommodation, however the employee is not required to use any magic words. If the employer knows about the employee’s physical condition, the interactive process obligation arises “once the employer becomes aware of the need to consider an accommodation.”

A recent California court decision, Scotch v. Art Institute of California, emphasized that the interactive process is a continuous, “cooperative problem-solving” endeavor, and that communications must be open with each side airing its concerns in an effort to find a workable solution. Although this may sound like a departure into a marriage counseling session or a process best suited for resolving inter-personal conflict, the court was quite serious in its analysis of who is at fault for a breakdown in the process. The court noted that, “liability hinges on the objective circumstances surrounding the parties’ breakdown in communication, and responsibility for the breakdown lies with the party who fails to participate in good faith.”

The employer has a somewhat greater responsibility to identify workable solutions since the employer generally has better information about open or available job positions or the types of accommodations that may be available. Nonetheless, if a lawsuit has been filed, the employee must “identify a reasonable accommodation that would have been available at the time the interactive process should have occurred.”

With these ideas in mind, employees should not be afraid to ask questions, to continue to press their employers for more information, and to seek accommodations that will allow them to perform their job.

Read more

unpaid wage lawyer

Walgreens employees win $4.5M settlement in bag check lawsuit

Over the years, several California employers have been sued for not paying employees for time spent on bag checks before or after work. A judge recently approved a $4.5 million settlement in…

READ ARTICLE
overtime violation attorney

Oakland judge OKs $78M overtime settlement for air medical company workers

California medical flight crew employees sued their employer, a medical helicopter company, for missed breaks and overtime violations. Now, the employees are set to receive a $78 million settlement that amounts to…

READ ARTICLE
age discrimination lawyer

Using COVID-19 layoffs as a pretext for age discrimination is unlawful

The COVID-19 pandemic has created difficulties for businesses everywhere. More and more companies have resorted to layoffs to reduce their workforce in light of the economy’s downward spiral. Given the current situation,…

READ ARTICLE
age discrimination attorney

Fired executive accuses IMAX of replacing older workers with younger ones

California and federal laws protect employees from being fired or discriminated against for unlawful reasons, such as on the basis of their age, sex, disability, race or national origin. Employment violations can…

READ ARTICLE
SEEN ON
cnnmoney
marin-ij
dailypost
news10