Los Angeles Disability Discrimination Lawyer

Disability Discrimination Attorneys in Los Angeles, CA

There is a misconception that disabled people do not want to work or that disabled individuals simply cannot or will not be as valuable in the workplace as able-bodied individuals.

In California, it is estimated that 33.5% of disabled individuals are employed, and 9.5% are currently not working but are looking for gainful employment (Cornell University, 2014). These are people who want to be employed and positively impact our economy.

Unfortunately, many give up the search regularly because they feel or know they are discriminated against when interviewing for or working in a job.

An award-winning disability discrimination lawyer in Los Angeles at the Azadian Law Group is dedicated to protecting employee rights and has successfully represented healthcare professionals, financial executives, and other employees in disability discrimination cases. Mr. Azadian has unparalleled experience representing employees who were fired due to a medical condition, who were not provided reasonable accommodations at work for their medical condition, or where the employer did not engage in a good-faith interactive process to determine how best to accommodate a disabled employee. Please read below for much more detailed information about the legal rights provided to disabled employees under California and Federal law.

We strongly believe in the saying, “Jack of all trades, master of none.” Therefore, we exclusively represent plaintiffs in labor & employment lawsuits.  By focusing our practice, we can offer our clients in-depth expert knowledge possessed by few others in the industry. Our verdicts and settlements make us a real threat from the start of the case and provide our clients maximum value for their claims. Compare our results to others; you will see that we have a track record of proven success.

Los Angeles Disability Discrimination Attorneys - Super Lawyer

“Qualified Individual with a Disability” Defined

Someone who is a “qualified individual with a disability” is an individual who meets the skill, education, experience, or other requirements of an employment position that he or she holds or which he or she is seeking. These individuals can perform all of the “essential functions” of a position either with or without what is known as “reasonable accommodation” (which we will address a bit later on).

Disabled workers must be qualified. Suppose an individual is “qualified” to perform essential job functions (apart from any limitations due to his or her disability). In that case, the employer must consider if a job applicant can perform these functions with reasonable accommodation.

A written job description may be the most important thing for job applicants. If a written job description is prepared in advance, it can be used as evidence (though not conclusive evidence) that an applicant can or could have performed essential functions of the job.

On that note, employers do not need to prefer a “qualified applicant with a disability” over another equally or more qualified applicant. Employers can hire an applicant who best fulfills the job role. For example, suppose a disabled applicant types 35 words per minute, but an able-bodied applicant can type 75 words per minute, and they are performing data entry. In that case, the employer can hire the applicant with a higher typing speed.

Who Is Protected from Employment Discrimination in California?

Employment discrimination is prohibited against “qualified individuals with disabilities.” This term covers both employees and applicants for employment.
First, an individual is considered to have a disability if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that imposes substantial limitations on one or more life activities, including a medical condition that limits the employee’s ability to work. These are also individuals who are medically known to have an impairment or are regarded as having an impairment.

Some of the most common impairments include:

  • Seeing.
  • Speaking.
  • Hearing.
  • Walking.
  • Learning.
  • Breathing.
  • Performing manual tasks.
  • Caring for one’s self.

There are other impairments which may fall under the general “disability” umbrella, including:

  • Paralysis.
  • Epilepsy.
  • AIDS.
  • HIV infection.
  • Mental retardation.

Examples of what would likely not be covered are non-chronic conditions such as a sprain, the flu, or a broken limb.

An individual may also be considered to have an impairment if they have a record of disability, such as a person who has or is recovering from cancer or a mental illness. Those who also have a substantially limiting impairment may also qualify, such as someone who has a severe facial disfigurement but who was denied employment because an employer believed that his or her customers would have “negative reactions” from customers and/or co-workers.

What a “Disability” May Look Like?

The Fair Employment and Housing Act generally accepts that a disability may fall under one of the following two umbrellas:

  • Physical disability.
  • Mental disability.

Someone with a physical disability may have a physiological disorder, disease, condition, anatomical loss, or cosmetic disfigurement that affects one or more body systems. This results in a limitation on the person’s activity. Some of these body systems may include:

  • Musculoskeletal.
  • Immunological.
  • Respiratory.
  • Special sense organs.
  • Skin and endocrine systems.

A mental disability is a psychological or mental condition or disorder which can impede one’s activities in life. This may be due to mental retardation, emotional or mental stress, organic brain syndrome, or a specific learning disability. These mental or psychological disorders also require special education (or another related service)

Mental conditions are not the same as a mental disability. A mental condition is considered to be a health impairment that is related to or associated with a genetic characteristic or a diagnosis of cancer (or a history of cancer). As an example, women who carry an established gene that increases their chance of breast cancer are protected under state law.

How Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) Protects Disabled Employees?

FEHA helps protect applicants and employees with disabilities by demanding the following two things from employers:

  • The employer must provide reasonable accommodation for disabled applicants and employees.
  • An employer must engage in a timely and good faith interactive process with applicants or employees needing “reasonable accommodation.

Reasonable accommodation is any appropriate measure that allows a disabled applicant or employee to perform essential job role functions. This may include modifying a work schedule, modifying or purchasing new equipment, restructuring jobs, and modifying examinations and policies. See California Government Code § 12926.1(p)(2); 2 CCR § 11068(d)(1).

Not every accommodation a disabled applicant or employee may deem necessary for the job may be legally required by FEHA. There are legal reasons for an employer to permissibly refuse to accommodate the request for “reasonable accommodation,” with the most common being because it would cause “undue hardship” to an employer. An employer must prove this by showing one or more of the following factors:

  • The cost and nature of the accommodation would present an undue hardship to the employer’s operation of the business.
  • The financial resources would hurt the operation of the facility.
  • The operations (including the workforce’s structure, composition, and functions) cannot be accommodated.
  • An employer cannot accommodate someone with a certain type of disability because of the administrative or fiscal relationship or the geographic separateness of the facility.

For example, let’s say an applicant with a severe vision impairment applies for a job in a small market with only five other employees. The applicant requires assistance to work at the register by having one of those four other employees present at all times. Suppose the business in question cannot afford additional staff to accommodate the employee or the cost of remodeling to accommodate two employees simultaneously. In that case, it may not be allowed to provide “reasonable accommodation.”

An employer cannot simply demand that you be 100% healed to return to work. See Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 140 Cal. App. 4th 34, 49 n.11 (2006) (“A policy requiring an employee be ‘100 percent healed’ before returning to work is a per se violation even under the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] because it permits an employer to avoid the required individualized assessment of the employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation.”); see also McGregor v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 187 F. 3d 1113, 1116 (9th Circ. 1999) (stating that a policy requiring employees to be ‘100% healed’ or ‘fully healed’ after an injury is facially discriminatory and constitutes a per se violation of the ADA).

Disabled Employees Are Entitled to an “Interactive Process”

Employers must engage in the “interactive process” with their disabled employees. This process includes taking the time to sit down with the disabled individual to determine his or her job limitations and then identifying potential accommodations and assessing how effective he or she will be. See Wysinger v. Auto. Club of S. Cal., 157 Cal. App. 4th 413, 424 (2007) (“Under FEHA, an employer must engage in a good faith interactive process with the disabled employee to explore the alternatives to accommodate the disability. . . . Failure to engage in this process is a separate FEHA violation independent from an employer’s failure to provide a reasonable disability accommodation, which is also a FEHA violation.”)

California Government Code section 12940(n) provides that it is unlawful “[f]or an employer…to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee…to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee…with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition.” Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 166 Cal. App. 4th 952, 978-979 (2008). “[T]he interactive process requires communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations between employers and individual employees with the goal of identify[ing] an accommodation that allows the employee to perform the job effectively.  . . . [F]or the process to work both sides must communicate directly, exchange essential information and neither side can delay or obstruct the process.” Id. at 984-985; see also Wysinger v. Auto. Club of S. Cal., 157 Cal. App. 4th 413, 424 (2007) (“Under FEHA, an employer must engage in a good faith interactive process with the disabled employee to explore the alternatives to accommodate the disability. . . . Failure to engage in this process is a separate FEHA violation independent from an employer’s failure to provide a reasonable disability accommodation, which is also a FEHA violation.”)

California law clearly states that an employer must initiate the interactive process when it becomes aware of an employee’s request for accommodation. See 2 CCR § 11069 (an employer “shall initiate an interactive process when . . . (1) an applicant or employee with a known physical or mental disability or medical condition requests reasonable accommodations, or (2) the employer or other covered entity otherwise becomes aware of the need for an accommodation through a third party or by observation”).

“Once initiated, the employer must engage in the interactive process in good faith.” Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist., 232 Cal. App. 4th 954, 971-972 (2014). This means an employer cannot just engage in the interactive one time where additional interaction is needed to arrive at an appropriate reasonable accommodation. Accordingly, the employer should engage in the interactive process once it learns that the employee’s condition has worsened or the employee has difficulty performing his or her duties due to their disability.

The preferences of what accommodations will best suit the disabled individual should be considered, but ultimately, it will be the best fit for the employee and the employer. It is also important that this “consultation” be conducted in “good faith,” meaning that both the employer and the employee can directly communicate to note essential information to ensure appropriate accommodations are made.

Job Applicants Are Not Required to Take a Medical Examination

The ADA prohibits a potential employer from asking for an application or requiring an application to take a medical examination before making a job offer. Your employer also cannot make pre-employment inquiries about your disability, including the nature of the severity of it.

An employer can ask questions pertaining to one’s ability to perform specific job functions. For example, an employer can ask someone with a disability to describe or demonstrate how he or she would perform a specific task, either with or without accommodation.

Employers also have the right to condition a job offer on the satisfactory result of a post-offer medical inquiry or examination, but only if this is a requirement of all employees entering the same job category. It is important to note that a post-offer inquiry or exam does not have to be job-related and does not need to be consistent with business necessity.

To further complicate matters, if an individual is not hired because a post-offer medical inquiry or examination reveals a disability, the reasons for not hiring that individual must be related to the job and consistent with the necessity of the business. The employer must also prove that no reasonable accommodation was available that would allow the disabled individual to perform their essential job functions or that the accommodation would result in undue hardship.

The Fair Employment and Housing Act defines two disability categories: (1) mental disability and (2) physical disability. Each category contains its specific definitions. Also, under the FEHA, an employee with a “medical condition” is entitled to accommodation.

A physical disability is any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that affects one or more of several body systems and limits a major life activity. The body systems listed include the neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, speech, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine systems. A physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss limits a major life activity, such as working, if it makes achieving the major life activity difficult.

When determining whether a person has a disability, an employer cannot consider any medication or assistive device, such as wheelchairs, eyeglasses, or hearing aids, that an employee may use to accommodate the disability. However, if these devices or mitigating measures “limit a major life activity,” they should be considered. Physical disability also includes any other health impairment that requires special education or related services; having a record or history of a disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, anatomical loss, or health impairment that is known to the employer; and being perceived or treated by the employer as having any of the aforementioned conditions.

A mental disability is any mental or psychological disorder or condition, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, or specific learning disabilities, that limits a major life activity or any other mental or psychological disorder or condition that requires special education or related services. An employee who has a record or history of a mental or psychological disorder or condition which is known to the employer or who is regarded or treated by the employer as having a mental disorder or condition is also protected.

A medical condition is any health impairment related to or associated with a diagnosis of cancer, a record or history of cancer, or a genetic characteristic. A “genetic characteristic” can be a scientifically or medically identifiable gene or chromosome or an inherited characteristic that could statistically lead to increased development of a disease or disorder. For example, women who carry a gene established to statistically lead to breast cancer are protected under state law.

When it comes to applicants and employees with disabilities, the FEHA generally requires two things of employers.

Those requirements are: (1) employers must provide reasonable accommodation for those applicants and employees who, because of their disability, are unable to perform the essential functions of their job; and (2) employers must engage in a timely, good faith interactive process with applicants or employees in need of reasonable accommodation.

However, before engaging applicants or employees, the employer should have some understanding of what constitutes a “disability” under state law. Before an applicant or employee can be reasonably accommodated, he or she must establish that he or she has a disability as defined under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Reasonable accommodation is any appropriate measure that would allow the applicant or employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job. It can include making facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities or restructuring jobs, modifying work schedules, buying or modifying equipment, modifying examinations and policies, or other accommodations. For example, providing a keyboard rest for someone with carpal tunnel syndrome may be a reasonable accommodation. A person with asthma may require that the lawn care be rescheduled for a non-business day.

The FEHA provides legal reasons for an employer to permissibly refuse to request reasonable accommodation from an applicant or employee. One of the legal reasons is whether the accommodation would present an undue hardship to the operation of the employer’s business. If an employer denies accommodation because it would be an “undue hardship,” it must be shown that the accommodation requires significant difficulty or expense when considered in the light of the following factors:

  • The nature and cost of the accommodation needed.
  • The overall financial resources of the facilities involved in providing reasonable accommodations, the number of persons employed at the facility, and the effect on expenses and resources or the impact otherwise of these accommodations upon the facility’s operation.
  • The employer’s overall financial resources, the business’s overall size for the number of employees, and the number, type, and locations of its facilities.
  • The type of operations, including the composition, structure, and functions of the employer’s workforce.
  • The geographic separateness, administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities.

For example, an applicant with a severe vision impairment applies for employment with a small market that has only four other employees. The applicant requires assistance to work the register by always having another employee present. The business in question would not have to provide the accommodation if, for example, it could not afford the cost of the additional staff or could not afford the cost of remodeling to accommodate two employees simultaneously.

The interactive process includes consulting with the individual to ascertain the precise job-related limitations and how they could be overcome with a reasonable accommodation, identifying potential accommodations, and assessing their effectiveness. Although the individual’s preferences in the accommodation selection should be considered, the accommodation implemented should be most appropriate for both the employee and the employer. The interactive process must be conducted in “good faith,” meaning that the employer and employee must communicate directly to determine essential information, and neither party can delay or interfere with the process. To demonstrate good-faith engagement in the interactive process, the employer should be able to point to cooperative behavior that promotes the identification of an appropriate accommodation.

Employment discrimination is prohibited against “qualified individuals with disabilities.” This includes applicants for employment and employees. An individual is considered to have a “disability” if s/he has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. Persons discriminated against because they have a known association or relationship with an individual with a disability are also protected.

The first part of the definition clarifies that the ADA applies to persons with impairments and that these must substantially limit major life activities such as seeing, hearing, speaking, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, learning, caring for oneself, and working. An individual with epilepsy, paralysis, HIV infection, AIDS, a substantial hearing or visual impairment, mental retardation, or a specific learning disability is covered. Still, an individual with a minor, non-chronic condition of short duration, such as a sprain, broken limb, or the flu, generally would not be covered.

The second part of the definition protecting individuals with a record of a disability would cover, for example, a person who has recovered from cancer or mental illness.

The third part of the definition protects individuals regarded as having a substantially limiting impairment, even though they may not have such an impairment. For example, this provision would protect a qualified individual with severe facial disfigurement from being denied employment because an employer feared the “negative reactions” of customers or co-workers.

A qualified individual with a disability is a person who meets legitimate skill, experience, education, or other requirements of an employment position that s/he holds or seeks and who can perform the “essential functions” of the position with or without reasonable accommodation. Requiring the ability to perform “essential” functions assures that an individual with a disability will not be considered unqualified simply because of an inability to perform marginal or incidental job functions. Suppose the individual is qualified to perform essential job functions except for limitations caused by a disability. In that case, the employer must consider whether the individual could perform these functions with a reasonable accommodation. Suppose a written job description has been prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for a job. In that case, this will be considered as evidence, although not conclusive evidence, of the essential functions of the job.

No. An employer can select the most qualified applicant available and make decisions based on reasons unrelated to a disability. For example, suppose two persons apply for a job as a typist; an essential function is accurately typing 75 words per minute. One applicant, an individual with a disability, who is provided with a reasonable accommodation for a typing test, types 50 words per minute; the other applicant, who has no disability, accurately types 75 words per minute. The employer can hire an applicant with a higher typing speed for the job’s successful performance.

An employer may not ask or require a job applicant to take a medical examination before making a job offer. It cannot make any pre-employment inquiry about a disability or the nature or severity of a disability. An employer may, however, ask questions about the ability to perform specific job functions and may, with certain limitations, ask an individual with a disability to describe or demonstrate how s/he would perform these functions.

An employer may condition a job offer on the satisfactory result of a post-offer medical examination or medical inquiry if this is required of all entering employees in the same job category. A post-offer examination or inquiry must not be job-related and consistent with business necessity.

However, suppose an individual is not hired because a post-offer medical examination or inquiry reveals a disability. In that case, the reason(s) for not hiring must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. The employer also must show that no reasonable accommodation would enable the individual to perform the essential job functions or that accommodation would impose an undue hardship. A post-offer medical examination may disqualify an individual if the employer can demonstrate that the individual would pose a “direct threat” in the workplace (i.e., a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others) that cannot be eliminated or reduced below the “direct threat” level through reasonable accommodation. Such a disqualification is job-related and consistent with business necessity. A post-offer medical examination may not disqualify an individual with a disability who is currently able to perform essential job functions because of speculation that the disability may cause a risk of future injury.

After an employee starts work, a medical examination or inquiry must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. Employers may conduct employee medical examinations with evidence of a job performance or safety problem, examinations required by other Federal laws, examinations to determine current fitness to perform a particular job, and voluntary examinations that are part of employee health programs.

Information from all medical examinations and inquiries must be kept apart from general personnel files as a confidential medical record, available only under limited conditions.

Tests for illegal use of drugs are not medical examinations under the ADA and are not subject to the restrictions of such examinations.

No. The ADA does not require employers to develop or maintain job descriptions. However, a written job description that is prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for a job will be considered as evidence and other relevant factors. If an employer uses job descriptions, they should be reviewed to ensure they accurately reflect a job’s actual functions. A job description will be most helpful if it focuses on the results or outcome of a job function, not solely on how it is customarily performed. A reasonable accommodation may enable a person with a disability to accomplish a job function in a manner that is different from the way an employee who is not disabled may accomplish the same function.

Reasonable accommodation is any modification or adjustment to a job or the work environment that will enable a qualified applicant or employee with a disability to participate in the application process or to perform essential job functions. Reasonable accommodation also includes adjustments to assure that a qualified individual with a disability has rights and privileges in employment equal to those of employees without disabilities.

Examples of reasonable accommodation include making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by an individual with a disability, restructuring a job, modifying work schedules, acquiring or modifying equipment, providing qualified readers or interpreters, or appropriately modifying examinations, training, or other programs. Reasonable accommodation may also include reassigning a current employee to a vacant position for which the individual is qualified if the person cannot do the original job because of a disability, even with an accommodation. However, there is no obligation to find a position for an applicant who is not qualified for the position sought. Employers are not required to lower quality or quantity standards as an accommodation, nor are they obligated to provide personal use items such as glasses or hearing aids.

The decision as to the appropriate accommodation must be based on the particular facts of each case. In selecting the particular type of reasonable accommodation to provide, the principal test is effectiveness, i.e., whether the accommodation will allow a person with a disability to achieve the same level of performance and to enjoy benefits equal to those of an average, similarly situated person without a disability. However, the accommodation does not have to ensure equal results or provide the same benefits.

An employer is only required to accommodate a “known” disability of a qualified applicant or employee. The requirement will generally be triggered by a request from an individual with a disability, who will frequently be able to suggest appropriate accommodation. Accommodations must be made individually because the nature and extent of a disabling condition and job requirements will vary in each case. Suppose the individual does not request an accommodation. In that case, the employer is not obligated to provide one except where an individual’s known disability impairs his/her ability to know of or effectively communicate a need for an accommodation that is obvious to the employer. If a person with a disability requests but cannot suggest an appropriate accommodation, the employer and the individual should work together to identify one. Many public and private resources can assist without cost.

The individual with a disability requiring the accommodation must be otherwise qualified, and the disability must be known to the employer. In addition, an employer is not required to make an accommodation if it would impose an “undue hardship” on the operation of the employer’s business. “Undue hardship” is defined as an “action requiring significant difficulty or expense” when considering several factors. These factors include the nature and cost of the accommodation and the size, resources, nature, and structure of the employer’s operation. Undue hardship is determined on a case-by-case basis. Where the facility making the accommodation is part of a larger entity, the structure and overall resources of the larger organization would be considered, as well as the financial and administrative relationship of the facility to the larger organization. In general, a larger employer with greater resources would be expected to make accommodations requiring more significant effort or expense than would be required of a smaller employer with fewer resources.

If a particular accommodation would be an undue hardship, the employer must try to identify another accommodation that will not pose such a hardship. Also, suppose the cost of an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer. In that case, the individual with a disability should be given the option of paying that portion of the cost, which would constitute an undue hardship or providing the accommodation.

The employer’s obligation under Title I is to provide access for an individual applicant to participate in the job application process and for an individual employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of his/her job, including access to a building, to the work site, to needed equipment, and all facilities used by employees. For example, suppose an employee lounge is located in a place inaccessible to an employee using a wheelchair. In that case, the lounge might be modified or relocated, or comparable facilities might be provided in a location that would enable the individual to take a break with co-workers. The employer must provide such access unless it would cause an undue hardship.

Under Title I, an employer is not required to make its existing facilities accessible until a particular applicant or employee with a particular disability needs an accommodation. Then, the modifications should meet that individual’s work needs. However, employers should consider initiating changes that will provide general accessibility, particularly for job applicants, since it is likely that people with disabilities will be applying for jobs. The employer does not have to make changes to provide access to places or facilities that will not be used by that individual for employment-related activities or benefits.

No. An employer is not required to reallocate essential functions of a job as a reasonable accommodation.

Yes. Accommodations may be needed to ensure that tests or examinations measure an individual’s actual ability to perform job functions rather than reflect limitations caused by the disability. Tests should be given to people with sensory, speaking, or manual impairments in a format that does not require the impaired skill unless it is a job-related skill that the test is designed to measure.

An employer can hold employees with disabilities to the same standards of production/performance as other similarly situated employees without disabilities for performing essential job functions, with or without reasonable accommodation. An employer can also hold employees with disabilities to the same standards of production/performance as other employees regarding marginal functions unless the disability affects the person’s ability to perform those marginal functions. Suppose the ability to perform marginal functions is affected by the disability. In that case, the employer must provide some reasonable accommodation, such as job restructuring, but may not exclude an individual with a disability who is satisfactorily performing a job’s essential functions.

An employer can establish attendance and leave policies that are uniformly applied to all employees, regardless of disability, but may not refuse leave needed by an employee with a disability if other employees get such leave. An employer may also be required to adjust the leave policy as a reasonable accommodation. The employer is not obligated to provide additional paid leave, but accommodations may include leave flexibility and unpaid leave.

A uniformly applied leave policy does not violate the ADA because it has a more severe effect on an individual because of his/her disability. However, suppose an individual with a disability requests a modification of such a policy as a reasonable accommodation. In that case, an employer may be required to provide it unless it would impose an undue hardship.

Yes. The ADA permits employers to establish qualification standards that will exclude individuals who pose a direct threat — i.e., a significant risk of substantial harm — to the health or safety of the individual or of others if that risk cannot be eliminated or reduced below the level of a “direct threat”  by reasonable accommodation. However, an employer may not simply assume that a threat exists; the employer must establish through objective, medically supportable methods that there is a significant risk that substantial harm could occur in the workplace. By requiring employers to make individualized judgments based on reliable medical or other objective evidence rather than on generalizations, ignorance, fear, patronizing attitudes, or stereotypes, the ADA recognizes the need to balance the interests of people with disabilities against the legitimate interests of employers in maintaining a safe workplace.

No. Individuals who currently engage in the illegal use of drugs are specifically excluded from the definition of a “qualified individual with a disability” protected by the ADA when the employer takes action based on their drug use.

Yes. A test for the illegal use of drugs is not considered a medical examination under the ADA; therefore, employers may conduct such testing of applicants or employees and make employment decisions based on the results. The ADA does not encourage, prohibit, or authorize drug tests.

If the results of a drug test reveal the presence of a lawfully prescribed drug or other medical information, such information must be treated as a confidential medical record.

Yes. While a current illegal user of drugs is not protected by the ADA if an employer acts based on such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection. An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge, or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.

The ADA prohibits discrimination based on relationships or associations to protect individuals from actions based on unfounded assumptions that their relationship to a person with a disability would affect their job performance and from actions caused by bias or misinformation concerning certain disabilities. For example, this provision would protect a person whose spouse has a disability from being denied employment because of an employer’s unfounded assumption that the applicant would use excessive leave to care for the spouse.

Contact Our Los Angeles Disability Discrimination Lawyer At Azadian Law Group, PC

The fine line between disability discrimination and being passed over for a better-suited applicant can be incredibly difficult and complex, but the Azadian Law Group, PC, has the experience and knowledge necessary to identify the differences and determine whether you have a disability discrimination case.

Serving most of Southern California, if you believe that you have been a victim of disability discrimination, we want to hear from you. Please schedule your free consultation with our disability discrimination lawyer in Los Angeles today by calling 626-449-4944 or 213-229-9031.

Praise from Our Clients

A

ANT S

a week ago
Thanks alot to your entire team. First to make people feel comfortable in a tough situation goes along
posted-on-google
J

Joseph Avila

5 months ago
Called this office around closing, spoke to a nice lady. Her name was Camille. Even though it was
posted-on-google
O

Oren Mordech

6 months ago
Camille was beyond helpful. My employers are the worst people i have ever met and their making my
posted-on-google
A

Ashley Curtis

11 months ago
Azadian Law Group, led by the competent George, provided me with excellent legal assistance during a challenging wrongful
posted-on-google
T

Tinny Abogado

10 months ago
George is kind. Throughout the process, he was responsive to questions and concerns, and kept me updated. He
posted-on-google
A

Anthony Gray

a month ago
Amazing Employment Law Attorneys for employees, I thank them so much for being great at communicating and being
posted-on-google
M

Marissa Zapanta

10 months ago
My experience with the Azadian Law Group was excellent.I highly recommend this Firm.I’m particularly grateful to Camille Banks
posted-on-google
1

14เด็กชายภมร ศรีนาค ม.1/4

11 months ago
Facing wrongful termination can be an emotionally draining experience, but Azadian Law Group and its owner, George, provided
posted-on-google
D

Daniela Grimes

11 months ago
I contacted this office asking for some legal advice over a pending company legal issues we were having.
posted-on-google
R

Rhonds Tuttle

a year ago
George was my best choice when dealing with my past ten years of work history and problems. He
posted-on-google
N

Nora

a year ago
Great employment lawyers for a free consultation. I needed advice real fast and George and his team were
posted-on-google
m

matthew

a year ago
Mr. Azadian brought consistent first-rate legal advice and exceptional value to a wrongful termination lawsuit. This value is
posted-on-google
T

Trevor Pal-Freeman

4 months ago
Very knowledgeable with employment law. Great communication gets back to you normally within 24 hrs or less!
posted-on-google
J

Jim Justeese

a year ago
After a wrongful termination I reached out to several employment lawyers in the Los Angeles area. I was
posted-on-google
M

Miguel Marrero

6 months ago
George is a GREAT employment attorney!He was very effective and expeditious handling my legal case. George is the
posted-on-google
V

Violeta Boneva

11 months ago
George took my case and it was an absolute breeze - not only did he keep me informed
posted-on-google
K

Kendall Mayshack

a year ago
I have been absolutely amazed with my results from George azadian. I am blown away by how this
posted-on-google
s

samuel reyes

a year ago
I highly recommend Azadian Law Group for anyone facing wrongful termination. They took the time to understand my
posted-on-google
C

Chris Wise

2 years ago
Got a free consultation from Camile and she was extremely thorough and patient throughout the entire process. George
posted-on-google
C

Candace Grass

a year ago
I cannot say enough about my experience with the Azadian Law Group, specifically, Camille Banks. In this day
posted-on-google
J

Jayce Langoodi

a year ago
dear George,thank you so much for your quick response to my call on friday evening between you and
posted-on-google
N

Nancy Strbac

a year ago
George is extremely professional , fast and efficient , most importantly gets you good results ! I highly
posted-on-google
K

Karen Graziano

4 years ago
When I was let go after a decade of employment at my company I started searching online for
posted-on-google
E

Eddie Solorio

2 years ago
Thank you for your prompt response George. I was attended and provided customer care by Ms. Camille. I
posted-on-google
T

Tina Reganyan

a year ago
Azadian is an excellent employment attorney in Los Angeles. Very impressed with them for wrongful termination laws and
posted-on-google
s

shelby lee

a year ago
Very blessed to have found these employment lawyers in Los Angeles. I called a few and they gave
posted-on-google
G

Garo Artinian

a year ago
Very happy to have found these Orange County employment lawyers. Excellent skills and service for employees. Thanks!
posted-on-google
C

Claudine Andrews

2 years ago
George is a great attorney. Very responsive and always willing to take the time to explain each step
posted-on-google
M

Mike Higgins

a year ago
Very knowledgeable!! I called to get some information and possibly retain counsel, the person I spoke with Camille,
posted-on-google
P

Pia Gonzalez

10 months ago
Call ALG if you want a caring and patient law firm! They fight hard for clients! Great experience.
posted-on-google
J

Jean Alegado

10 months ago
As one of his clients, their office kept me updated and well-informed with good outcome at the end.
posted-on-google
a

azad artounabedian

a year ago
Best employment attorney!! I called for a consultation for a potential wrongful termination case and was blown away
posted-on-google
G

Grace Najera

10 months ago
I’m really happy with how the group communicated with their clients. They gave us updates whenever there was
posted-on-google
L

Lady Davida (DEE-DEE)

2 years ago
I Spoke With Camille Who Is Very Pleasant & Has A Great Spirit Here @ Azadian Law Group
posted-on-google
C

Cindy Amaya

6 years ago
I definitely have to recommend Azadian Law Group, the lawyer was committed to assist me in the difficult
posted-on-google
M

Matthew McClure

2 years ago
George was friendly, easy to reach, kept me in the loop throughout everything, and made the overall process
posted-on-google
A

Angelo Wolf

a year ago
Incredibly professional group, from my discussion with the Paralegal on.I was contacted quickly by Mr. Azadian who had
posted-on-google
A

Angie

2 years ago
OMG this Law Firm have a Very professional legal clerk, Camille made a great attempt at answering my
posted-on-google
J

Jae Jae

2 years ago
Thank You Camille! For staying on the phone for 30 mins because I wouldn’t stop with the questions
posted-on-google
D

Debbie Britton

2 years ago
George is an expert attorney in his specialty. He is honest and straightforward. His communication is excellent.
posted-on-google
D

Denia Alonzo

2 years ago
It was so easy to work with george!! He is always responding quickly!! He explains everything in a
posted-on-google
K

Krysten Klein

a year ago
They were great in answering my questions. They are very responsive and responded in a timely fashion. I
posted-on-google
P

Peter Ward

7 years ago
These guys are really great at what they do. Definitely use them i am so happy i was
posted-on-google
C

Chelsea Pham

10 months ago
The Law Group followed the case and updated me frequently. I am satisfied and highly recommend this firm.
posted-on-google
M

Melissa Jansson

a year ago
Mr. Azadian was prompt and helpful in his review of my case. I highly recommend his firm.
posted-on-google
S

Stephen Suarez

2 years ago
Camille was very helpful in helping me get my last check I def recommend to anyone that’s had
posted-on-google
W

William Reid

9 months ago
George Azadian was professional, courteous, and helpful to my situation. Thank you!
posted-on-google
S

Salwa Melikyan

2 years ago
Excellent employment law attorney! I highly recommend this firm. They are so knowledgeable and easy to work with.
posted-on-google
D

Dio

7 months ago
Very good employment attorney for all labor and wage issues. George is very professional and keeps you updated
posted-on-google
k

knathan rivera

7 years ago
George and his associates are a very friendly and aggressive team nothing short of amazing always professional and
posted-on-google
P

Priscilla Deker

2 years ago
I had such a wonderful experience with this law firm. They are professional, quick and straight to the
posted-on-google
A

Aracelis Feria

4 years ago
George is amazing at what he does. He is a very caring attorney, and he provided the best
posted-on-google
Z

Zaman Molla

a year ago
George and his legal team is very prompt and fantastic!
posted-on-google
D

Donovan Rittmon

6 months ago
Very knowledgeable professional lawyer fast results
posted-on-google
P

Paiman Z

2 years ago
Azadian Law Group was quick to respond to my concerns and provided great advice on how to resolve
posted-on-google
a

annika jimenez

4 years ago
I want to thank the Azadian Law group for all their help. When I got wrongfully terminated, I
posted-on-google
A

Angela Rembert

a year ago
Amazing employment law attorneys who care about their clients.
posted-on-google
w

wakesha mcgauley

a year ago
I never got breaks or lunch
posted-on-google
R

Ray Garcia

7 months ago
Fantastic
posted-on-google
D

Delmimar Mendez

10 months ago
Excellent on all aspect
posted-on-google
T

Trevor Pal-Freeman

4 months ago
Very knowledgeable with employment law. Great communication gets back to you normally within 24 hrs or less!
posted-on-google
S

Salwa Melikyan

2 years ago
Excellent employment law attorney! I highly recommend this firm. They are so knowledgeable and easy to work with.
posted-on-google
D

Dio

7 months ago
Very good employment attorney for all labor and wage issues. George is very professional and keeps you updated
posted-on-google
k

knathan rivera

7 years ago
George and his associates are a very friendly and aggressive team nothing short of amazing always professional and
posted-on-google
A

Andrew Oliver

2 months ago
I had contacted this law firm for about a potential case, and they were quick to respond and
posted-on-google
A

Amanda Chen

a month ago
I endured unfair treatment from my company for a year and a half. Camille has been a beacon
posted-on-google
L

Lori Smith

11 months ago
When I encountered a wrongful termination situation, I was fortunate to have Azadian Law Group in Pasadena on
posted-on-google
J

Julia Gould

11 months ago
Entrusting George from the Pasadena Law Office with my workplace harassment case was akin to discovering a luminary
posted-on-google
R

Regina Santellan

5 years ago
If I could give this law firm 10 stars I would. At what I thought would be a
posted-on-google
L

Lauren

8 years ago
From the moment I stepped in George's office, I knew he was going to be my lawyer. I
posted-on-google
R

Rahul Kumar

a year ago
I am incredibly grateful to Azadian Law Group for their diligent work on my wrongful termination case. Their
posted-on-google
S

Shilpa Desawale

4 years ago
We reached out to Azadian group based on google search, at that time we didn’t know much about
posted-on-google
k

kim nguyen

7 years ago
I could not have asked for a better lawyer. I was referred to him by very trusted friend.
posted-on-google
H

Heather Mlodinow

7 years ago
George makes it easy. He's a wonderful attorney - smart, personable and professional. His reasoned approach helped me
posted-on-google
R

Roselle Mendoza

7 years ago
George is a great and an amazing lawyer. He is very good, dedicated and really cares about his
posted-on-google
K

Kerrie Mays

7 years ago
George was an extremely professional and effective employment lawyer. He was very responsive, even after the case was
posted-on-google
l

love and Lava

5 years ago
If you are in need of a Lawfirm that will care for your case, and if you feel
posted-on-google
Q

Que Thrower

7 years ago
George and his team were great. He was able to get the best settlement possible at a very
posted-on-google
b

brokenrabbitsfoot S.

2 years ago
I spoke with Camille B. about some issues I was having. Even though they didn't take my case
posted-on-google
k

kelvin jankins

7 years ago
If i could I'll give Azadian law Group 10 stars! I've came in contact with many attorney's but
posted-on-google
R

Rachel Mulkerin

7 years ago
I had an extremely positive experience working with this firm on my case regarding unfair termination; they really
posted-on-google
W

Wes

4 years ago
Though they were not able to take my case, Camille was incredibly sympathetic and was able to guide
posted-on-google
J

Jamiyah Sanders

7 years ago
He was great. The best lawyer in town. He got the job done did not procrastinate call me
posted-on-google
K

Krystie Wen

7 years ago
George Azadian is a great wage and hour lawyer. He knows his stuff and about overtime. Very responsible
posted-on-google
T

Tae Macias

7 years ago
Very helpful and responsive team that I would refer to friends and family, provided sound advice. George helped
posted-on-google
D

Dr. Nick Ghazarian

5 years ago
Best employment lawyers in Los Angeles. Can’t say anything else but I’m very happy!
posted-on-google
C

Chatt Fly

7 years ago
Amazing employment lawyers. This law firm really helped me out and I would recommend them to friends and
posted-on-google
R

Rhonda Tuttle

a year ago
George and his staff were the best
posted-on-google
J

Jose Andrade

3 years ago
These people are the best in the business I recomend them 110 percent
posted-on-google
B

Brian Mackenzie

a year ago
Camille is the best!
posted-on-google
T

Trevor Pal-Freeman

4 months ago
Very knowledgeable with employment law. Great communication gets back to you normally within 24 hrs or less!
posted-on-google
G

Garo Artinian

a year ago
Very happy to have found these Orange County employment lawyers. Excellent skills and service for employees. Thanks!
posted-on-google
S

Salwa Melikyan

2 years ago
Excellent employment law attorney! I highly recommend this firm. They are so knowledgeable and easy to work with.
posted-on-google
P

Priscilla Deker

2 years ago
I had such a wonderful experience with this law firm. They are professional, quick and straight to the
posted-on-google
A

Angela Rembert

a year ago
Amazing employment law attorneys who care about their clients.
posted-on-google
L

Larry Sandoval

2 months ago
I recently had the pleasure of using Azadian Law Group. Camille assistance exceeded my expectations. She is very
posted-on-google
S

Sayna Sanaei

4 months ago
I had been on the phone with various attorney offices, feeling frustrated as nobody seemed interested in helping
posted-on-google
Y

Yordani Uceta

a year ago
Choosing Azadian Law Group was the best decision I made when faced with wrongful termination. Their compassionate and
posted-on-google
T

The Chief Geek

2 years ago
I wasn't too sure of my rights when I was suddenly terminated out of the blue. Camille contacted
posted-on-google
V

Victoria VanSuttenic

6 years ago
I called the Azadian Law Group because I heard they were one of the best labor and employment
posted-on-google
a

a a

6 years ago
George is as honest as they come! I had an employment issue that I needed legal counsel to
posted-on-google
S

Stacy Cake

6 years ago
Was referred to Azadian Law Group by friend who is an attorney. Thank goodness for that. George and
posted-on-google
P

Paul Cohoat

2 years ago
This is for Camille and the Partners. This is a group of tremendous, normal, professional people that give
posted-on-google
D

Dani Vander

6 years ago
They were the only firm who took the time to explain to me how the case was not
posted-on-google
L

Leah Artiga

4 years ago
Camilla Was Absolutely Helpful! Great Customer service and very professional.I'm very happy I had the opportunity to talk
posted-on-google
m

maurice pierce

5 years ago
Great employment lawyers! They do what they say they'll do! Highly recommend! You will not be dissapointed!
posted-on-google
S

Samuel Sandoval

4 years ago
George was very helpful with my case and always kept me informed, highly recommend him
posted-on-google
r

rhonda cedroni

3 years ago
Very personable. They want every individual to feel like they matter. At least that was my experience.
posted-on-google

Who We Represent

At Azadian Law Group, we are dedicated to upholding the rights and interests of employees in the workplace. Our expertise in employment law positions us as staunch advocates for those facing unjust treatment in their professional environments.

Whether combating workplace discrimination, addressing unfair termination, or negotiating equitable compensation, our team is committed to ensuring that every employee we represent is treated fairly and respectfully under the law.

we-represent
Want Us to Represent You?
Here’s How To Get Started

Step 1

Explore our comprehensive range of legal services to find the specialized support you need.

Step 2

Arrange a free initial meeting with our experts to discuss your legal situation.

Step 3

Receive a custom strategy specially created for your case by our legal experts.

Call Us Now 213-229-9031

Or

Tell Us Your Story

Speak out for justice. Your story can be the start of a new chapter of workplace fairness.

    Contact Us