A California Court of Appeal has thrown out a $307,000 verdict for an applicant who was turned down for a deputy sheriff job because he was colorblind. But as we’ll explain, the outcome might have been very different—and more costly for the employer—if the case had been decided under the new state anti-discrimination rules that take effect Jan. 1, 2001.
Colorblind Applicant Flunks Tests
All Riverside County deputy sheriff applicants had to pass color vision tests to show they could safely perform their duties. Teg Diffey, who is colorblind, wasn’t hired because he failed the tests—although he could pass them when using specially tinted contact lenses.
Big Verdict For Rejected Applicant
Diffey sued under California and federal anti-discrimination laws, claiming that the county had to accommodate him because he was disabled from the major life activities of seeing and working or, alternatively, because the department considered him to be disabled even if he wasn’t. The county denied thatit regarded Diffey as disabled and argued that adequate color vision was a legitimate job qualification.
The jury ultimately found Diffey’s condition wasn’t a protected disability under the law. But it also concluded that the county regarded him as disabled. The jury awarded Diffey $307,000, and the county appealed.
Join us this fall in San Francisco for the California Employment Law Update conference, a 3-day event that will teach you everything you need to know about new laws and regulations, and your compliance obligations, for the year ahead—it’s one-stop shopping at its best.
Court Overturns Verdict
In looking at whether the county considered Diffey disabled, the court explained that he had to show that the employer mistakenly believed his impairment substantially limited a major life activity such as working. The court found that the county simply believed Diffey wasn’t qualified to be a deputy sheriff, but didn’t regard him as disabled because there were 63 other jobs in the sheriff’s department its managers thought he could perform.
Plus, although Diffey’s sight was affected by the color deficiency, his vision wasn’t substantially limited. Therefore, the court concluded that Diffey was not protected by state and federal anti-bias laws and threw out the jury verdict.
Worker Protections Boosted
As we recently reported, effective Jan. 1, 2001, a new California law (A.B. 2222) strengthens state disability bias protections for workers. A large new group of employees may now be considered disabled, which is likely to trigger a flood of new litigation. In fact, Diffey might have prevailed on his discrimination claim under the new standards. Here’s why:
- Impairment may affect only a particular job. Under the new rules, a worker has a protected disability if their condition prevents them from working in a particular job, not just a broad range of jobs as federal law requires. Diffey’s inability to perform the deputy sheriff duties could be sufficient to limit the major life activity of working, even though he could still hold many other jobs.
- Major life activity doesn’t have to be substantially limited. In California, the impairment will only have to make engaging in a major life activity “difficult,” instead of substantially limited. For example, although Diffey’s condition may not have substantially limited his vision under the new standards, it could be considered to make seeing more difficult and, therefore, qualify him for protection—and an accommodation.
- Corrective measures must be ignored. Although not an issue in this case, under the new California rules, whether a person is disabled must be evaluated without considering mitigating factors such as medication, hearing aids or corrective lenses. This is a major departure from federal law, which requires that corrective measures be taken into account when determining whether a worker’s disability is protected.