California AIDS and Disease laws & HR compliance analysis

California AIDS and Disease: What you need to know

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or applicants on the basis of actual or perceived physical or mental disability, medical condition, or genetic information. FEHA also prohibits discrimination based on an individual's association with a person who has, or is perceived to have, a protected characteristic (CA Gov. Code Sec. 12900 et seq.). Employers are also prohibited from harassing an applicant, employee, or person providing contracted services on the basis of mental or physical disability, medical condition, or genetic information. FEHA applies to employers, including employment agencies and labor unions, with five or more employees. Note: FEHA's antiharassment provisions apply to employers with at least one employee or one person providing contracted services on a regular basis.
For a Limited Time receive a FREE HR Report on the "Critical HR Recordkeeping”.  This exclusive special report covers hiring records, employment relationships, termination records, litigation issues, electronic information issues, tips for better recordkeeping, and a list of legal requirements.  Download Now
Medical condition. Medical condition means any health impairment related to a diagnosis, record or history of cancer, or a genetic condition that is known to be a cause of or associated with a disease or disorder (CA Gov. Code Sec. 12926(h)).
Accommodation and essential job functions. An employer is not required to employ an individual whose disability or medical condition, even with reasonable accommodation, makes him or her unable to perform the essential duties of the position. The California Supreme Court has ruled that an employee claiming disability discrimination must show that he or she was able to perform the essential functions of the job in question, with or without a reasonable accommodation (Green v. State of California, 42 Cal. 4th 254 (2007)). In this case, the Court ruled that the employer did not unlawfully discriminate against the ...

Read more about AIDS and Disease