{"id":1333,"date":"2021-10-25T03:51:24","date_gmt":"2021-10-25T03:51:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?page_id=1333"},"modified":"2022-05-05T17:26:25","modified_gmt":"2022-05-05T17:26:25","slug":"caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements\/","title":{"rendered":"CACI 2540 Disability Discrimination\u2014Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-kuo0ssp1-b4b2c510439a5ec3c0dc5e234a832fd2\">\n#top .av-special-heading.av-kuo0ssp1-b4b2c510439a5ec3c0dc5e234a832fd2{\npadding-bottom:10px;\n}\nbody .av-special-heading.av-kuo0ssp1-b4b2c510439a5ec3c0dc5e234a832fd2 .av-special-heading-tag .heading-char{\nfont-size:25px;\n}\n.av-special-heading.av-kuo0ssp1-b4b2c510439a5ec3c0dc5e234a832fd2 .av-subheading{\nfont-size:15px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='av-special-heading av-kuo0ssp1-b4b2c510439a5ec3c0dc5e234a832fd2 av-special-heading-h1 blockquote modern-quote  avia-builder-el-0  el_before_av_hr  avia-builder-el-first '><h1 class='av-special-heading-tag '  itemprop=\"headline\"  >CACI 2540 Disability Discrimination\u2014Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements<\/h1><div class='av-subheading av-subheading_below'><p>California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"special-heading-border\"><div class=\"special-heading-inner-border\"><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-1  el_after_av_heading  el_before_avia_sc_search '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7\">\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchform_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nborder-color:#edae44;\nbackground-color:#edae44;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #s.av-input-field{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #searchsubmit{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchsubmit_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n.ajax_search_response.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7{\npadding:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nmargin:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='avia_search_element av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7  avia-builder-el-2  el_after_av_hr  el_before_av_textblock '><search><form action='https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/' id='searchform_element' method='get' class='' data-element_id='av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7' ><div class='av_searchform_wrapper'><input type='search' value='' id='s' name='s' placeholder='Search CACI' aria-label='Search CACI' class='av-input-field ' required \/><div class='av_searchsubmit_wrapper '><input type='submit' value='Find' id='searchsubmit' class='button ' title='View results on search page' aria-label='View results on search page' \/><\/div><input type='hidden' name='numberposts' value='8' \/><input type='hidden' name='post_type' value='page' \/><input type='hidden' name='results_hide_fields' value='post_titles,meta,image' \/><\/div><\/form><\/search><\/div>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-av_textblock-e878f05c31dff72941bf1e49a00d9ff5 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/\">CACI Jury Instructions Index<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/caci-fillable-forms.crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">App: CACI Jury Instructions Fillable Forms Word Format<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-4  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-kuo0wdca-fe80bd47c9d0e1c6712b03c844c9724a\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-kuo0wdca-fe80bd47c9d0e1c6712b03c844c9724a .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:20px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-kuo0wdca-fe80bd47c9d0e1c6712b03c844c9724a '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><h2 class=\"SS_Banner\">2540\u00a0Disability Discrimination\u2014Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements<\/h2>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] claims that [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] wrongfully discriminated against [him\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] based on [his\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [history of [a]] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">select term to describe basis of limitations, e.g., physical condition<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]. To establish this claim, [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] must prove all of the following:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">1.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was [an employer\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other covered entity<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]];<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">2.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [was an employee of [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\/applied to [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] for a job\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">describe<\/span>\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other covered relationship to defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]];<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">3.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] knew that [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] had [a history of having] [a] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">e.g., physical condition<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [that limited [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">insert major life activity<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]];<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">4.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was able to perform the essential job duties of [his\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [current position\/the position for which [he\/she\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] applied], either with or without reasonable accommodation for [his\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">e.g., condition<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">];<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">5.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [discharged\/refused to hire\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other adverse employment action<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">];]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[or]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] subjected [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] to an adverse employment action;]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[or]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was constructively discharged;]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">6.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s [history of [a]] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">e.g., physical condition<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was a substantial motivating reason for [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s [decision to [discharge\/refuse to hire\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other adverse employment action<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\/conduct];<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">7.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was harmed; and<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">8.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s harm.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] does not need to prove that [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] held any ill will or animosity toward [him\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] personally because [he\/she\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was [perceived to be] disabled. [On the other hand, if you find that [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] did hold ill will or animosity toward [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] because [he\/she\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was [perceived to be] disabled, you may consider this fact, along with all the other evidence, in determining whether [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s [history of [a]] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">e.g., physical condition<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was a substantial motivating reason for [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s [decision to [discharge\/refuse to hire\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other adverse employment action<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\/conduct].] <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\"><\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_1\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">New September 2003; Revised June 2006, December 2007, April 2009, December 2009, June 2010, June 2012, June 2013, December 2014, December 2016, May 2019, May 2020 <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">Crowdsource Lawyers<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\">https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci<\/a><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\"><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Directions for Use<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_2\">\n<p>Select a term to use throughout to describe the source of the plaintiff\u2019s limitations. It may be a statutory term such as \u201cphysical disability,\u201d \u201cmental disability,\u201d or \u201cmedical condition.\u201d (See\u00a0Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(a).) Or it may be a general term such as \u201ccondition,\u201d \u201cdisease,\u201d or \u201cdisorder.\u201d Or it may be a specific health condition such as \u201cdiabetes.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In the introductory paragraph and in elements 3 and 6, select the bracketed language on \u201chistory\u201d of disability if the claim of discrimination is based on a history of disability rather than a current actual disability.<\/p>\n<p>For element 1, the court may need to instruct the jury on the statutory definition of \u201cemployer\u201d under the FEHA. Other covered entities under the FEHA include labor organizations, employment agencies, and apprenticeship training programs. (See\u00a0Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(a)\u2013(d).)<\/p>\n<p>This instruction is for use by both an employee and a job applicant. Select the appropriate options in elements 2, 5, and 6 depending on the plaintiff\u2019s status.<\/p>\n<p>Modify elements 3 and 6 if the plaintiff was not actually disabled or had a history of disability, but alleges discrimination because the plaintiff was perceived to be disabled. (See\u00a0Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912926(o); see also\u00a0Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912926(j)(4),\u00a0(m)(4)\u00a0[mental and physical disability include being regarded or treated as disabled by the employer].) This can be done with language in element 3 that the employer \u201ctreated [<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span>] as if [he\/she\/<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span>] \u2026\u201d and with language in element 6 \u201cThat [<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of employer<\/span>]\u2019s belief that\u2009\u2026\u2009.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>If the plaintiff alleges discrimination on the basis of the plaintiff\u2019s association with someone who was or was perceived to be disabled, give\u00a0CACI No. 2547,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Disability-Based Associational Discrimination\u2014Essential Factual Elements.<\/span>\u00a0(See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635, 655\u2013660 [163 Cal.Rptr.3d 392]\u00a0[claim for \u201cdisability based associational discrimination\u201d adequately pled].)<\/p>\n<p>If medical-condition discrimination as defined by statute (see\u00a0Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912926(i)) is alleged, omit \u201cthat limited [<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">insert major life activity<\/span>]\u201d in element 3. (Compare\u00a0Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912926(i)\u00a0with\u00a0Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912926(j),\u00a0(m)\u00a0[no requirement that medical condition limit major life activity].)<\/p>\n<p>Regarding element 4, it is now settled that the ability to perform the essential duties of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation, is an element of the plaintiff\u2019s burden of proof. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Green v. State of California<\/span>\u00a0(2007) 42 Cal.4th 254, 257\u2013258 [64 Cal.Rptr.3d 390, 165 P.3d 118].)<\/p>\n<p>Read the first option for element 5 if there is no dispute as to whether the employer\u2019s acts constituted an adverse employment action. Read the second option and also give\u00a0CACI No. 2509,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">\u201cAdverse Employment Action\u201d Explained<\/span>, if whether there was an adverse employment action is a question of fact for the jury. If constructive discharge is alleged, give the third option for element 5 and also give\u00a0CACI No. 2510,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">\u201cConstructive Discharge\u201d Explained<\/span>. Select \u201cconduct\u201d in element 6 if either the second or third option is included for element 5.<\/p>\n<p>Element 6 requires that the disability be a substantial motivating reason for the adverse action. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris v. City of Santa Monica<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 232 [152 Cal.Rptr.3d 392, 294 P.3d 49]; see also\u00a0CACI No. 2507,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">\u201cSubstantial Motivating Reason\u201d Explained<\/span>.)<\/p>\n<p>Give the optional sentence in the last paragraph if there is evidence that the defendant harbored personal animus against the plaintiff because of the plaintiff\u2019s disability.<\/p>\n<p>If the existence of a qualifying disability is disputed, additional instructions defining \u201cphysical disability,\u201d \u201cmental disability,\u201d and \u201cmedical condition\u201d may be required. (See\u00a0Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912926(i),\u00a0(j),\u00a0(m).) <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Sources and Authority<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">Disability Discrimination Prohibited Under Fair Employment and Housing Act.\u00a0Government Code section 12940(a).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">Inability to Perform Essential Job Duties.\u00a0Government Code section 12940(a)(1).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cMedical Condition\u201d Defined.\u00a0Government Code section 12926(i).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cMental Disability\u201d Defined.\u00a0Government Code section 12926(j).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cPhysical Disability\u201d Defined.\u00a0Government Code section 12926(m).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">Perception of Disability and Association With Disabled Person Protected.\u00a0Government Code section 12926(o).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cSubstantial\u201d Limitation Not Required.\u00a0Government Code section 12926.1(c).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he plaintiff initially has the burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The plaintiff can meet this burden by presenting evidence that demonstrates, even circumstantially or by inference, that he or she (1) suffered from a disability, or was regarded as suffering from a disability; (2) could perform the essential duties of the job with or without reasonable accommodations, and (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability or perceived disability. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must show \u2018\u2009\u201c\u2009\u2018\u2009\u201cactions taken by the employer from which one can infer, if such actions remain unexplained, that it is more likely than not that such actions were based on a [prohibited] discriminatory criterion\u2009\u2026\u2009.\u201d\u2009\u2019\u2009\u201d \u2026\u2019 The prima facie burden is light; the evidence necessary to sustain the burden is minimal. As noted above, while the elements of a plaintiff\u2019s prima facie case can vary considerably, generally an employee need only offer sufficient circumstantial evidence to give rise to a reasonable\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">inference<\/span>\u00a0of discrimination.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297, 310 [115 Cal.Rptr.3d 453], original italics, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe distinction between cases involving\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">direct evidence<\/span>\u00a0of the employer\u2019s motive for the adverse employment action and cases where there is only\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">circumstantial evidence<\/span>\u00a0of the employer\u2019s discriminatory motive is critical to the outcome of this appeal. There is a vast body of case law that addresses proving discriminatory intent in cases where there was no direct evidence that the adverse employment action taken by the employer was motivated by race, religion, national origin, age or sex. In such cases, proof of discriminatory motive is governed by the three-stage burden-shifting test established by the United States Supreme Court in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green<\/span>\u00a0(1973) 411 U.S. 792 [93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668].\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wallace v. County of Stanislaus<\/span>\u00a0(2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 109, 123 [199 Cal.Rptr.3d 462], original italics, footnote and internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe three-stage framework and the many principles adopted to guide its application do not apply in discrimination cases where, like here, the plaintiff presents direct evidence of the employer\u2019s motivation for the adverse employment action. In many types of discrimination cases, courts state that direct evidence of intentional discrimination is rare, but disability discrimination cases often involve direct evidence of the role of the employee\u2019s actual or perceived\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">disability<\/span>\u00a0in the employer\u2019s decision to implement an adverse employment action. Instead of litigating the employer\u2019s reasons for the action, the parties\u2019 disputes in disability cases focus on whether the employee was able to perform essential job functions, whether there were reasonable accommodations that would have allowed the employee to perform those functions, and whether a reasonable accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship on the employer. To summarize, courts and practitioners should not automatically apply principles related to the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">McDonnell Douglas<\/span>\u00a0test to disability discrimination cases. Rather, they should examine the critical threshold issue and determine whether there is direct evidence that the motive for the employer\u2019s conduct was related to the employee\u2019s physical or mental condition.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wallace, supra<\/span>, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 123, original italics, footnote and internal citations omitted; cf.\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Moore v. Regents of University of California<\/span>\u00a0(2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 216, 234 fn. 3 [206 Cal.Rptr.3d 841]\u00a0[case did not present so-called \u201ctypical\u201d disability discrimination case, as described in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wallace<\/span>, in that the parties disputed the employer\u2019s reasons for terminating plaintiff\u2019s employment].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIf the employee meets this [prima facie] burden, it is then incumbent on the employer to show that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision. When this showing is made, the burden shifts back to the employee to produce substantial evidence that employer\u2019s given reason was either \u2018untrue or pretextual,\u2019 or that the employer acted with discriminatory animus, in order to raise an inference of discrimination.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Furtado v. State Personnel Bd.<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 729, 744 [151 Cal.Rptr.3d 292], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAlthough the same statutory language that prohibits disability discrimination also prohibits discrimination based on race, age, sex, and other factors, we conclude that disability discrimination claims are fundamentally different from the discrimination claims based on the other factors listed in section 12940, subdivision (a). These differences arise because (1) additional statutory provisions apply to disability discrimination claims, (2) the Legislature made separate findings and declarations about protections given to disabled persons, and (3) discrimination cases involving race, religion, national origin, age and sex, often involve pretexts for the adverse employment action\u2014an issue about motivation that appears less frequently in disability discrimination cases.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wallace, supra<\/span>, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 122.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[Defendant] argues that, because [it] hired plaintiffs as recruit officers, they must show they were able to perform the essential functions of a police recruit in order to be qualified individuals entitled to protection under FEHA. [Defendant] argues that plaintiffs cannot satisfy their burden of proof under FEHA because they failed to show that they could perform those essential functions. [\u00b6] Plaintiffs do not directly respond to [defendant]\u2019s argument. Instead, they contend that the relevant question is whether they could perform the essential functions of the positions to which they sought reassignment. Plaintiffs\u2019 argument improperly conflates the legal standards for their claim under section 12940, subdivision (a), for discrimination, and their claim under section 12940, subdivision (m), for failure to make reasonable accommodation, including reassignment. In connection with a discrimination claim under section 12940, subdivision (a), the court considers whether a plaintiff could perform the essential functions of the job held\u2014or for job applicants, the job desired\u2014with or without reasonable accommodation.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Atkins v. City of Los Angeles<\/span>\u00a0(2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 696, 716\u2013717 [214 Cal.Rptr.3d 113].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cSummary adjudication of the section 12940(a) claim \u2026 turns on \u2026 whether [plaintiff] could perform the essential functions of the relevant job with or without accommodation. [Plaintiff] does not dispute that she was unable to perform the essential functions of her\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">former<\/span>\u00a0position as a clothes fitter with or without accommodation. Under federal law, however, when an employee seeks accommodation by being reassigned to a vacant position in the company, the employee satisfies the \u2018qualified individual with a disability\u2019 requirement by showing he or she can perform the essential functions of the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">vacant position<\/span>\u00a0with or without accommodation. The position must exist and be vacant, and the employer need not promote the disabled employee. We apply the same rule here. To prevail on summary adjudication of the section 12940(a) claim, [defendant] must show there is no triable issue of fact about [plaintiff]\u2019s ability, with or without accommodation, to perform the essential functions of an available vacant position that would not be a promotion.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Nadaf-Rahrov v. The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 952, 965 [83 Cal.Rptr.3d 190], original italics, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cTo establish a prima facie case of mental disability discrimination under FEHA, a plaintiff must show the following elements: (1) She suffers from a mental disability; (2) she is otherwise qualified to do the job with or without reasonable accommodation; and (3) she was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Medical Foundation<\/span>\u00a0(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 78, 84 [187 Cal.Rptr.3d 745].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAt most, [plaintiff] alleges only that he anticipated becoming disabled for some time after the organ donation. This is insufficient. [Plaintiff] cannot pursue a cause of action for discrimination under FEHA on the basis of his \u2018actual\u2019 physical disability in the absence of factual allegations that he was in fact, physically disabled.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rope, supra<\/span>, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 659.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[Defendant] asserts the statute\u2019s \u2018regarded as\u2019 protection is limited to persons who are denied or who lose jobs based on an employer\u2019s reliance on the \u2018myths, fears or stereotypes\u2019 frequently associated with disabilities.\u2009\u2026 However, the statutory language does not expressly restrict FEHA\u2019s protections to the narrow class to whom [defendant] would limit its coverage. To impose such a restriction would exclude from protection a large group of individuals, like [plaintiff], with more mundane long-term medical conditions, the significance of which is exacerbated by an employer\u2019s failure to reasonably accommodate. Both the policy and language of the statute offer protection to a person who is not actually disabled, but is wrongly perceived to be. The statute\u2019s plain language leads to the conclusion that the \u2018regarded as\u2019 definition casts a broader net and protects\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">any<\/span>\u00a0individual \u2018regarded\u2019 or \u2018treated\u2019 by an employer \u2018as having, or having had, any physical condition that makes achievement of a major life activity difficult\u2019 or may do so in the future. We agree most individuals who sue exclusively under this definitional prong likely are and will continue to be victims of an employer\u2019s \u2018mistaken\u2019 perception, based on an unfounded fear or stereotypical assumption. Nevertheless, FEHA\u2019s protection is nowhere expressly premised on such a factual showing, and we decline the invitation to import such a requirement.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp.<\/span>\u00a0(2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 53 [43 Cal.Rptr.3d 874], original italics, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he purpose of the \u2018regarded-as\u2019 prong is to protect individuals rejected from a job because of the \u2018myths, fears and stereotypes\u2019 associated with disabilities. In other words, to find a perceived disability, the perception must stem from a false idea about the existence of or the limiting effect of a disability.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Diffey v. Riverside County Sheriff\u2019s Dept.<\/span>\u00a0(2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1037 [101 Cal.Rptr.2d 353], internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWe say on this record that [defendant] took action against [plaintiff] based on concerns or fear about his possible future disability. The relevant FEHA definition of an individual regarded as disabled applies only to those who suffer certain specified physical disabilities or those who have a condition with \u2018no present disabling effect\u2019 but which \u2018may become a physical disability\u2009\u2026\u2009.\u2019 According to the pleadings, [defendant] fired [plaintiff] to avoid accommodating him because of his association with his physically disabled sister. That is not a basis for liability under the \u2018regarded as\u2019 disabled standard.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Rope, supra<\/span>, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 659, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018[A]n employer \u201cknows an employee has a disability when the employee tells the employer about his condition, or when the employer otherwise becomes aware of the condition, such as through a third party or by observation. The employer need only know the underlying facts, not the legal significance of those facts.\u201d\u2009\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 570, 592 [210 Cal.Rptr.3d 59].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018An adverse employment decision cannot be made \u201cbecause of\u201d a disability, when the disability is not known to the employer. Thus, in order to prove [a discrimination] claim, a plaintiff must prove the employer had knowledge of the employee\u2019s disability when the adverse employment decision was made.\u2009\u2026 While knowledge of the disability can be inferred from the circumstances, knowledge will only be imputed to the employer when the fact of disability is the only reasonable interpretation of the known facts. \u201cVague or conclusory statements revealing an unspecified incapacity are not sufficient to put an employer on notice of its obligations\u2009\u2026\u2009.\u201d \u2026\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Scotch v. Art Institute of California<\/span>\u00a0(2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1008 [93 Cal.Rptr.3d 338].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[W]e interpret FEHA as authorizing an employer to distinguish between disability-caused misconduct and the disability itself in the narrow context of threats or violence against coworkers. If employers are not permitted to make this distinction, they are caught on the horns of a dilemma. They may not discriminate against an employee based on a disability but, at the same time, must provide all employees with a safe work environment free from threats and violence.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wills v. Superior Court<\/span>\u00a0(2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 143, 166 [125 Cal.Rptr.3d 1], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cRequiring the plaintiff to show that discrimination was a\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">substantial<\/span>\u00a0motivating factor, rather than simply\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">a<\/span>\u00a0motivating factor, more effectively ensures that liability will not be imposed based on evidence of mere thoughts or passing statements unrelated to the disputed employment decision. At the same time,\u2009\u2026 proof that discrimination was a\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">substantial<\/span>\u00a0factor in an employment decision triggers the deterrent purpose of the FEHA and thus exposes the employer to liability, even if other factors would have led the employer to make the same decision at the time.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris, supra<\/span>, 56 Cal.4th at p. 232, original italics.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWe do not suggest that discrimination must be alone sufficient to bring about an employment decision in order to constitute a substantial motivating factor. But it is important to recognize that discrimination can be serious, consequential, and even by itself determinative of an employment decision without also being a \u2018but for\u2019 cause.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris, supra<\/span>, 56 Cal.4th at p. 229.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWe note that the court in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris<\/span>\u00a0discussed the employer\u2019s motivation and the link between the employer\u2019s consideration of the plaintiff\u2019s physical condition and the adverse employment action without using the terms \u2018animus,\u2019 \u2018animosity,\u2019 or \u2018ill will.\u2019 The absence of a discussion of these terms necessarily implies an employer can violate section 12940, subdivision (a) by taking an adverse employment action against an employee \u201cbecause of\u201d the employee\u2019s physical disability even if the employer harbored no animosity or ill will against the employee or the class of persons with that disability.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wallace, supra<\/span>, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 128.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">Based on\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris<\/span>, we conclude that an employer has treated an employee differently \u2018because of\u2019 a disability when the disability is a substantial motivating reason for the employer\u2019s decision to subject the [employee] to an adverse employment action. This conclusion resolves how the jury should have been instructed on [defendant]\u2019s motivation or intent in connection with the disability discrimination claim.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wallace, supra<\/span>, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 128.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWe conclude that where, as here, an employee is found to be able to safely perform the essential duties of the job, a plaintiff alleging disability discrimination can establish the requisite employer intent to discriminate by proving (1) the employer knew that plaintiff had a physical condition that limited a major life activity, or perceived him to have such a condition, and (2) the plaintiff\u2019s actual or perceived physical condition was a substantial motivating reason for the defendant\u2019s decision to subject the plaintiff to an adverse employment action.\u2009\u2026 [T]his conclusion is based on (1) the interpretation of section 12940\u2019s term \u2018because of\u2019 adopted in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris<\/span>; (2) our discussion of the meaning of the statutory phrase \u2018to discriminate against\u2019; and (3) the guidance provided by the current versions of\u00a0CACI Nos. 2540\u00a0and\u00a02507. [\u00b6] Therefore, the jury instruction that [plaintiff] was required to prove that [defendant] \u2018regarded or treated [him] as having a disability in order to discriminate\u2019 was erroneous.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wallace, supra<\/span>, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 129.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe word \u2018animus\u2019 is ambiguous because it can be interpreted narrowly to mean \u2018ill will\u2019 or \u2018animosity\u2019 or can be interpreted broadly to mean \u2018intention.\u2019 In this case, it appears [defendant] uses \u2018animus\u2019 to mean something more than the intent described by the substantial-motivating-reason test adopted in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris<\/span>.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wallace, supra<\/span>, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 130, fn. 14, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018[W]eight may qualify as a protected \u201chandicap\u201d or \u201cdisability\u201d within the meaning of the FEHA if medical evidence demonstrates that it results from a physiological condition affecting one or more of the basic bodily systems and limits a major life activity.\u2019 \u2026 \u2018[A]n individual who asserts a violation of the FEHA on the basis of his or her weight must adduce evidence of a physiological, systemic basis for the condition.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club<\/span>\u00a0(2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 908, 928 [227 Cal.Rptr.3d 286].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cBeing unable to work during pregnancy is a disability for the purposes of section 12940.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1340 [153 Cal.Rptr.3d 367].) <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"SS_Heading\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\"><span class=\"SS_ib\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_ib\">Secondary Sources<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n<div>8 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Constitutional Law, \u00a7\u00a7\u20091045\u20131049<\/div>\n<div>Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 9-C,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">California Fair Employment And Housing Act (FEHA)<\/span>, \u00b6\u00b6\u20099:2160\u20139:2241 (The Rutter Group)<\/div>\n<div>1 Wrongful Employment Termination Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) Discrimination Claims, \u00a7\u00a7\u20092.78\u20132.80<\/div>\n<div>2\u00a0Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 41,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Substantive Requirements Under Equal Employment Opportunity Laws<\/span>, \u00a7\u200941.32[2][c]\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>11 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 115,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Civil Rights: Employment Discrimination<\/span>, \u00a7\u00a7\u2009115.14,\u00a0115.23,\u00a0115.34,\u00a0115.77[3][a]\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>California Civil Practice: Employment Litigation \u00a7\u20092:46 (Thomson Reuters)<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-7jseol-643384191ac4faa9000e7ce7adb70a81 hr-default  avia-builder-el-6  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-5xqn79-84051d654dda86c8c27cb9819876a7f9\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-5xqn79-84051d654dda86c8c27cb9819876a7f9 .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:22px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-5xqn79-84051d654dda86c8c27cb9819876a7f9 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">CrowdSourceLawyers.com<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1333","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>CACI 2540 Disability Discrimination\u2014Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CACI 2540 Disability Discrimination\u2014Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-05-05T17:26:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements\\\/\",\"name\":\"CACI 2540 Disability Discrimination\u2014Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-10-25T03:51:24+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-05-05T17:26:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/home\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CACI 2540 Disability Discrimination\u2014Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"name\":\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"description\":\"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"width\":453,\"height\":208,\"caption\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CACI 2540 Disability Discrimination\u2014Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CACI 2540 Disability Discrimination\u2014Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","og_url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements\/","og_site_name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","article_modified_time":"2022-05-05T17:26:25+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements\/","name":"CACI 2540 Disability Discrimination\u2014Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-10-25T03:51:24+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-05T17:26:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2540-disability-discrimination-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/home\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CACI 2540 Disability Discrimination\u2014Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","description":"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization","name":"CrowdSource Lawyers","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","width":453,"height":208,"caption":"CrowdSource Lawyers"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1333","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1333"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1333\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3831,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1333\/revisions\/3831"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}