| |

DENIED PARKING FOR A MEDICAL CONDITION? CALIFORNIA REQUIRES A CONVERSATION FIRST

Michael Trust Law, APC logo

You ask for a reserved parking spot closer to the entrance because a medical condition makes the long walk from the back lot difficult some days.  Your manager says no, the lot is first-come, first-served for everyone, and that is the end of the conversation.

This shows up more than people expect, and it usually gets framed the same way on both sides: the employee assumes the request was either granted or refused, full stop, and the employer assumes a flat policy answers the question.  Neither side treats it as the start of a process, because neither side may realize there is supposed to be one.

Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, or FEHA, a request tied to a medical condition is not something an employer can simply grant or deny on the spot.  Gov. Code § 12940(n) requires a timely, good- faith interactive process once an employer knows, or has reason to know, that an employee may need an accommodation.

Gov. Code § 12940(m) separately requires the accommodation itself where one exists and would not create an undue hardship, and a parking assignment is a recognized category of reasonable accommodation in the right circumstances.  What FEHA requires first is the conversation, not a policy citation.

Whether a denial without any back- and- forth violates that duty depends on what your employer knew, when they knew it, and whether any process happened at all, even an informal one.

A flat no with no discussion is a different legal problem than a real conversation that ends in a denial, even if the outcome looks the same from where you are standing.  Figuring out which one happened in your situation is exactly the kind of fact-specific question worth walking through directly.

Contact Michael Trust Law, APC for a no-charge initial consultation.  The facts determine whether you have a claim – and how much of a conversation that takes.

This post shares general information based on common patterns I see in California workplaces.  It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney- client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts – no lawyer can guarantee a result.  Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes.  AI may have been used to create this post.  All content reviewed by a CA attorney before publication.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *