Employees’ relationships with qualifying individuals are protected under the association provision. You can’t terminate employees because of this relationship.2 “Association,” according to the EEOC, doesn’t require a family relationship for an individual to be protected. The key is whether the employer is motivated by the individual’s relationship or association with a person who has a disability.

In one case, two long-term employees used their health care benefits to pay for their son’s medical care after he suffered a brain tumor. Shortly after their son’s relapse, the employees were investigated for timecard discrepancies and ultimately terminated, which the employees claimed was due to their association with their disabled son and the company’s concern about rising health care costs — and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

The court noted that the company progressively disciplined other employees who committed similar offenses, but they terminated these two particular employees. The court also noted that the company didn’t conduct a fair investigation.3

In one key federal case, the court noted three types of situations that can give rise to a claim for associational disability discrimination. In each situation, the employee is discriminated against because:4

• The individual’s spouse or other relative has a disability that’s costly to the employer (expense situations).
• The employer fears the employee may end up physically affected by the disability of a person they’re associated with (disability association situations). For example, the employee’s spouse has HIV and the employer fears the employee will become infected, or the employee’s twin has a genetic condition and the employer fears the employee will also develop the condition.
• The employer fears the employee will be inattentive at work because of a disability the person they are associated with has (distraction situations). For example, the employee’s child has cancer and the employer fears the employee will be distracted.

California courts have also affirmed that employees can pursue claims that they were discriminated against due to their association with a disabled person.

In one case, a court ruled that an employee who requested a leave of absence to donate a kidney to his sister could bring a claim that he was discriminated against based on his association with his disabled sister.5 A subsequent case was allowed to proceed to trial based on allegations that an employee’s association with his disabled son was a substantial motivating factor in the company’s termination decision.6

1. Govt. Code, secs. 12940(a) and 12926(n)