You Asked Once. They Said No. California Does Not Require You to Keep Asking.

You told your manager you needed a schedule adjustment because of a medical condition. Your manager said the position did not allow for that. You did not push back. You assumed the answer was final and that there was nothing more you could do.

That assumption is one of the most common accommodation mistakes California employees make, and it is one the employer often relies on.

Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, specifically Government Code section 12940(m), an employer has a duty to provide reasonable accommodation for a known physical or mental disability unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. The interactive process required by section 12940(n) is a good-faith, ongoing dialogue, not a single exchange that the employer closes with a no.

One denial is not a legal conclusion. It is the beginning of a process the employer is required to engage in. The analysis starts with the original request: can the employer explain, with documented support, why the specific accommodation the employee asked for poses an undue hardship? In California, undue hardship is a demanding standard, and most SMBs cannot satisfy it without documented evidence of genuine analysis. A manager saying “that does not work for us” without any documented review of the request does not come close.

If the original request genuinely poses an undue hardship, the obligation shifts to exploring alternatives. But each alternative the employer rejects also requires an undue-hardship showing. The employer cannot simply say no to the original request and stop. The interactive process continues until either a workable accommodation is found or the employer has documented, with specificity, why each option considered was not feasible.

The disability threshold under FEHA is also lower than most employees expect, and it is lower than the federal standard. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires a condition to “substantially limit” a major life activity. California FEHA requires only that the condition “limit” a major life activity, meaning the condition makes the activity more difficult. That distinction covers a wide range of conditions that would not qualify under federal law.

The request itself does not need to be in writing, and the word “accommodation” does not need to be used. A general statement about a condition affecting ability to work can be enough to trigger the duty.

Whether what happened in your situation fits a pattern California law recognizes, and whether the timing still gives you options, depends on the details.

If the pattern sounds familiar, contact Michael Trust Law 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.