Question: I have an employee whose spouse has a disability and requires ongoing care. The employee requested a modified work schedule so the employee can take the spouse to pre-scheduled doctors’ appointments. Do I have to accommodate this request?
Answer: Maybe. Historically, there has been confusion about whether California law (the Fair Employment and Housing Act) requires employers to provide accommodations to employees who are not themselves disabled but are associated with a disabled person. Recent federal court decisions have clarified this confusion. A recent string of court opinions suggest that the FEHA requires employers to engage in the interactive process and consider reasonable accommodations for employees associated with a disabled individual.
The FEHA is California’s version of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Like the ADA, the FEHA prohibits discrimination, and separately requires reasonable accommodation, for employees with protected characteristics, including a physical or mental disability. However, the FEHA does not expressly state whether these protections extend to non-disabled employees caring for a disabled family member.
In 2016, the California Court of Appeal in Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. held that the FEHA prevents employees from discriminating against employees who are associated with a disabled individual. However, the court stopped short of deciding whether the FEHA establishes a separate duty to “reasonably accommodate” employees who associate with a disabled person.
Since the Castro-Ramirez, there has been confusion and inconsistent court opinions on this question. But there have been some significant recent developments. In 2025, three separate federal district courts in California addressed the issue and reached the same conclusion—that the FEHA may require employers to consider reasonable accommodations for employees associated with disabled individuals. Although not binding on a California state court, these opinions give employers insight into how a state court might analyze the FEHA.
Given these recent opinions, a best practice for employers is to consider reasonable accommodations for employees who are associated with a disabled individual. Depending on the circumstances, accommodations may include intermittent leave, modified scheduling, remote work, shift changes, or other workplace adjustments that enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the position while assisting a disabled family member. Employers should engage in the interactive process and evaluate whether the requested accommodation is reasonable under the circumstances and whether it would create an undue hardship. If a reasonable accommodation exists and does not impose an undue hardship, it should generally be considered. However, employers are not required to eliminate essential job functions, create new positions, or implement accommodations that would impose significant operational burdens.
These cases do not establish a bright-line rule regarding what accommodations must be provided. Rather, employers must evaluate each request individually. For example, an employee whose child is undergoing cancer treatment may request a modified schedule or intermittent leave to attend medical appointments. By contrast, an employee whose child has a temporary, non-serious illness who requests a one-year leave of absence may be seeking an accommodation that is unreasonable or would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
The rules regarding associational disability accommodations including medical certification requirements continue to develop. A case-by-case analysis is required to ensure compliance with the FEHA. Employers with questions regarding associational disability are encouraged to consult with their employment counsel.