California expects employers and employees to cooperate promptly and in good faith to identify workable accommodations.
In plain terms
Even when no perfect accommodation exists, both sides are expected to communicate promptly and honestly about limitations and options. Shutting down conversations, ignoring medical paperwork without good cause, or refusing to consider alternatives can violate the law on its own—and often pairs with discrimination or failure-to-accommodate claims. Who reached out first and whether the dialogue was genuine usually matter more than polished HR jargon.
Snapshot: You cannot discuss accommodations for a disability nobody told the company about
The required “interactive process” is not a standalone magic word—it presupposes a disability-related limitation the employer understands in the legally
relevant sense. Husband v. Target Corporation () affirmed dismissal where the worker had not alerted Target
to a bipolar diagnosis and the appellate court ruled the misconduct managers witnessed did not legally force Target to infer that diagnosis. Practical
takeaway: document requests for accommodations in writing early so there is something concrete to negotiate.
Read the opinion (PDF).
