California Disability Discrimination Lawyer: FEHA Protection, Reasonable Accommodation, and the Interactive Process

HOME › CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW › WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION › DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

Last updated: April 2026 — Reflects California Government Code §§ 12926, 12940, and 12954 in effect as of January 1, 2026, including AB 2188 off-duty cannabis protections, the controlling California authority on disability accommodation and the interactive process, and the California Supreme Court's treatment of FEHA as broader than the federal Americans with Disabilities Act

California disability discrimination cases under the Fair Employment and Housing Act are among the most valuable in California employment law.

FEHA provides broader protection than the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, uncapped compensatory and emotional distress damages, mandatory attorney's fees to prevailing employees, and three distinct causes of action — disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and failure to engage in the interactive process — each of which can be pursued independently in the same case.

Failure-to-accommodate claims in particular frequently result in settlements in the six-figure range even in single-plaintiff matters, because California courts treat the employer's duty to accommodate as an affirmative obligation rather than a reactive one.

The legal framework matters because the differences between California and federal disability law are significant. Under FEHA, an employee need not show that their condition substantially limits a major life activity — California requires only that the condition limit the activity.

An employee "regarded as" disabled is protected even if no actual disability exists. An employer becomes obligated to engage in the interactive process once it becomes aware of the need to consider accommodation, whether or not the employee has formally requested one.

These expansions mean that the scenarios in which a California employer faces liability for disability discrimination are substantially broader than the federal baseline.

This guide covers the California disability discrimination framework, the reasonable accommodation duty under Government Code § 12940(m), the interactive process under § 12940(n), the undue hardship defense, damages, and the procedural steps available to employees who have experienced disability-based adverse employment action.

For the broader discrimination framework, including McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting and FEHA damages generally, see our California Workplace Discrimination guide.

What Is Disability Discrimination Under FEHA

Government Code § 12940(a) makes it unlawful for a California employer of five or more employees to refuse to hire, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against a person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition. The statute applies equally to applicants, probationary employees, and regular employees.

The five-employee threshold is materially lower than the fifteen-employee minimum under the federal ADA — meaning that many California employers who fall outside federal disability protection are fully subject to FEHA.

California defines both physical disability and mental disability broadly. Under Government Code § 12926, a physical disability includes any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that affects one or more of the body systems and limits a major life activity.

A mental disability includes any mental or psychological disorder or condition — such as intellectual disability, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, or specific learning disabilities — that limits a major life activity.

California's statutory framework explicitly covers conditions including HIV and AIDS, clinical depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, asthma, heart disease, and chronic pain conditions. The list is non-exhaustive.

The "limits a major life activity" threshold under FEHA is significantly lower than the federal "substantially limits" standard. A condition need only make the achievement of a major life activity difficult. Major life activities include physical, mental, and social activities, as well as working. Limitations on sleeping, eating, lifting, standing, walking, concentrating, reading, communicating, interacting with others, and caring for oneself all qualify.

Separately, a "medical condition" under Government Code § 12926(i) is defined without any requirement that the condition limit a major life activity. Medical conditions include any health impairment related to or associated with a diagnosis of cancer or a record or history of cancer, and genetic characteristics. Medical condition discrimination claims, therefore, avoid even the lower FEHA threshold requirement that applies to disability claims.

How FEHA Protection Is Broader Than the ADA

California courts consistently emphasize that FEHA disability protection exceeds federal ADA protection in multiple dimensions. The California Supreme Court confirmed in Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1019 that California explicitly rejected the more restrictive federal standard.

The practical differences dictate case evaluation:

Dimension	FEHA (California)	ADA (Federal)
Employer size threshold	5 or more employees	15 or more employees
Disability severity	"Limits" a major life activity	"Substantially limits" a major life activity
"Regarded as" disabled coverage	Triggers full accommodation duties	Protected but no accommodation duty
Accommodation duty trigger	Employer's awareness (no formal request required)	Employee's formal request generally required
Independent accommodation cause of action	Yes — § 12940(m)	Embedded within discrimination claim
Independent interactive process cause of action	Yes — § 12940(n)	Embedded within discrimination claim
Compensatory damages cap	None	$50,000–$300,000 depending on employer size
Punitive damages	Uncapped (subject to due process)	Capped with compensatory
Attorney's fees	Mandatory to prevailing plaintiff	Discretionary

Practical consequence. A back condition that makes lifting above twenty-five pounds difficult may qualify under FEHA but fail the ADA test. Under Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, California requires employers to reasonably accommodate individuals "regarded as" disabled, even if the individual is not actually disabled. Federal "regarded as" coverage does not trigger accommodation duties at all.

The affirmative-duty rule is particularly significant. Under California law, the duty to accommodate and the duty to engage in the interactive process arise once the employer becomes aware of the need for accommodation, not only when the employee formally requests one.

The California Court of Appeals in Prilliman v. United Air Lines (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 935 held that "no magic words are necessary" and that the employer's duty arises from awareness alone. Employers who wait for a formal written accommodation request before responding — a common industry practice — are violating California law the moment they learn the employee has a condition that might require accommodation.

For the full California causation framework that applies across all FEHA claims, see our substantial motivating factor standard guide.

Reasonable Accommodation Under Government Code § 12940(m)

Government Code § 12940(m) makes it unlawful for an employer to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical or mental disability of an applicant or employee, unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. This is an affirmative duty that operates independently of the non-discrimination obligation under § 12940(a).

Reasonable accommodations under FEHA are diverse and fact-specific. California regulations and case law recognize a non-exhaustive list of possible accommodations:

• Physical environment modifications: making facilities readily accessible, including accessible restrooms, break rooms, training rooms, and reserved parking; acquiring or modifying furniture, equipment, or devices, including ergonomic chairs, standing desks, or assistive technology.

• Work structure modifications: job restructuring — redistributing marginal job functions to other employees while preserving essential functions with the disabled employee; part-time or modified work schedules, including shift changes, flex time, or compressed workweeks; reassignment to a vacant position for which the employee is qualified.

• Policy and procedure modifications: adjusting or modifying examinations, training materials, or workplace policies; providing qualified readers, sign language interpreters, or captioning; altering when or how an essential function is performed; modifying supervisory methods; providing additional training.

• Location and attendance modifications: permitting telework or work-from-home where feasible; allowing assistive animals at the worksite; providing a finite leave of absence as an accommodation.

• Leave as accommodation. The California Court of Appeal in Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1331 held that a finite leave of greater than four months may be a reasonable accommodation under FEHA. This means that employers who terminate disabled employees after exhausting FMLA or CFRA leave — without analyzing whether additional leave would allow the employee to return — face significant liability.

Leave-as-accommodation claims are frequently the highest-value element of disability discrimination cases because they intersect with California's comprehensive leave protections. See our California medical leave framework guide for the interplay with CFRA, FMLA, and PDL.

The reasonable accommodation duty applies to the employer's actual or constructive knowledge of the disability. Once the employer knows or should know that an employee's condition may require accommodation, the accommodation duty attaches regardless of whether the employee formally requested it.

The Interactive Process Under Government Code § 12940(n)

Government Code § 12940(n) requires the employer to engage in a "timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations."

The interactive process is a separate cause of action from the reasonable accommodation duty itself — an employer can be liable for failing to engage in the interactive process even if reasonable accommodation would have ultimately been impossible.

California Code of Regulations, Title 2, § 11069 specifies the elements of a proper interactive process. The employer must respond promptly to disability disclosures and accommodation requests, gather relevant information without demanding excessive personal medical details, explore multiple accommodation options with the employee, consider alternatives when the employee's preferred accommodation is not feasible, and document the discussion.

California courts have identified specific patterns that indicate interactive process failures:

Employer Conduct	Legal Significance
No response to a documented disability disclosure	Per se violation of § 12940(n)
Delaying accommodation discussions without valid reason	Suggests bad faith, shifts burden to employer
Unilateral decisions about work restrictions without discussion	Direct violation of interactive process requirement
Superficial acknowledgment without genuine engagement	Recognized as interactive process failure
Demanding excessive medical documentation	Beyond what is needed; violates employee privacy rights
Blanket policy disqualifications	Requires individualized analysis per regulation
Denial without undue hardship analysis	Employer must articulate specific undue hardship grounds
Premature termination of discussions	Breakdown attributed to the terminating party

The California Supreme Court addressed the burden structure in Nadaf-Rahrov v. The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 952 and subsequent cases.

In Moore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 248 Cal.App. 4th 216, the Court of Appeal emphasized that while failure-to-accommodate and failure-to-interact-process claims are independent, each necessarily implicates the other, making documentation of the employer's response pattern essential.

When an interactive process breaks down, responsibility rests with the party that failed to participate in good faith. When the employer fails to respond, delays unreasonably, or makes unilateral decisions, the breakdown is attributed to the employer, and liability attaches.

The Undue Hardship Defense

Undue hardship is the employer's principal defense to reasonable accommodation claims. Government Code § 12926(u) defines undue hardship as "an action requiring significant difficulty or expense," and requires courts to consider the nature and cost of the accommodation, the overall financial resources of the facility, the size of the employer's entire operation, and the impact of the accommodation on facility operations.

Several principles limit the undue hardship defense in practice:

Burden on the employer. The employer bears the burden of proving undue hardship. The employee need not negate it. Once an employee shows a reasonable accommodation was possible, the employer must prove hardship at the level required by the statute.

Individualized analysis required. Blanket rules that an accommodation is "too disruptive" or "too expensive" are not sufficient. Courts require evidence tied to the specific accommodation, specific employer, and specific workplace circumstances.

Prior practice not a defense. An employer cannot deny an accommodation simply because it has not provided similar accommodations before. The accommodation must be evaluated on its own merits.

Disruption to coworkers. Minor disruption or inconvenience to other employees does not constitute undue hardship. The impact must rise to the level of significant difficulty or expense to the employer's overall operations.

Cost thresholds are context-specific. A $500 equipment purchase might be undue hardship for a five-person employer but negligible for a multi-state employer. Financial resources at the full operational level matter — not just the single facility or department.

Common Forms of Disability Discrimination in California Workplaces

California disability discrimination practice involves recurring fact patterns that specialized counsel recognizes and develops systematically:

Post-disclosure termination. Employees who disclose a medical condition — pregnancy, cancer, chronic illness, mental health condition — and experience adverse action shortly thereafter. Temporal proximity is strong circumstantial evidence of disability-based animus, particularly when the employer had no documented performance concerns before the disclosure.

Termination after medical leave. Employees terminated during or immediately after FMLA, CFRA, or PDL leave. California courts closely scrutinize "coincidental" restructurings that eliminate a returning disabled employee's position.

Failure to accommodate back injuries and lifting restrictions. Common in warehouse, construction, healthcare, and manufacturing contexts. Employers who ignore documented lifting restrictions or refuse to reassign the employee to a compatible vacant position face high-value liability, particularly when the injury is work-related and intersects with workers' compensation protections.

Performance documentation that appears after protected activity. Performance concerns that first materialize after a disability disclosure, accommodation request, or leave request are recognized as pretextual in California case law. See our California wrongful termination guide for the broader pretext framework.

Mental health stigma. Employees with depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, PTSD, or other mental health conditions who face adverse action, isolation, or harassment. FEHA protects mental disabilities coextensively with physical disabilities — employers who treat mental health differently face full FEHA liability.

Cancer and cancer history discrimination. Medical condition discrimination claims under § 12926(i) apply to cancer survivors even after remission. Cancer history is protected regardless of any current limitation.

Diabetes, epilepsy, and other chronic conditions. Employers who make employment decisions based on perceived risk rather than individualized assessment — for example, refusing to hire a diabetic applicant based on generalized safety concerns — violate FEHA.

Pregnancy-related conditions. Pregnancy-related disabilities, including preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, severe morning sickness, and post-partum depression, are protected under both FEHA disability provisions and pregnancy disability leave under PDL. See our pregnancy termination guide.

Substance use disorder in recovery. Current illegal drug use is not protected. However, employees in recovery, employees undergoing rehabilitation, and employees who have completed rehabilitation are protected under FEHA. Employers who terminate employees in recovery based on past substance use history violate FEHA.

Associational discrimination. Under Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1028, FEHA protects employees who suffer adverse action because of their association with a disabled person — for example, employees terminated because they need flexibility to care for a disabled family member.

Pre-Employment Medical Inquiries and FEHA § 12940(e)

Government Code § 12940(e) strictly limits medical inquiries during the hiring process. The rules depend on the hiring stage:

Hiring Stage	Permitted Inquiries	Prohibited Inquiries
Before conditional offer	Ability to perform job-related functions; response to an applicant's request for accommodation	Whether applicant has a disability or medical condition; nature or severity of any disability; medical or psychological examinations
After conditional offer	Medical examinations if required of all entering employees in the same job category	Individualized targeting based on suspected disability
During employment	Medical inquiries tied to job-relatedness and business necessity	General inquiries unrelated to specific accommodation or fitness-for-duty questions

Violations of pre-offer inquiry rules are separately actionable under FEHA. Employers who ask disability-related questions on applications or in initial interviews — even without taking adverse action based on the answers — violate the statute. Medical information obtained after a conditional offer must be kept in separate, confidential medical files, not in the general personnel file.

AB 2188 and Off-Duty Cannabis Use Under § 12954

Effective January 1, 2024, Government Code § 12954 (enacted by AB 2188) prohibits California employers from discriminating against an employee based on the person's off-the-job, off-premises cannabis use. The statute also prohibits discrimination based on employer-required drug screening that detects non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites, which remain in the body long after any impairment has ended.

The law has important exceptions. Employers may prohibit cannabis use at the workplace or during work hours. Employers may take action based on employer-required drug screening that specifically measures active THC or other indicators of current impairment.

Safety-sensitive positions governed by federal requirements, construction trades regulated by federal contracts, and positions requiring federal security clearances are generally exempt.

The practical effect is that California employers can no longer use a standard urinalysis — which detects metabolites from days or weeks ago — to terminate or refuse to hire based on off-duty cannabis use in most circumstances. Employees who experienced such adverse action before understanding their § 12954 rights may have live claims if within the statute of limitations.

Harassment Based on Disability

Government Code § 12940(j) prohibits harassment based on medical condition, physical disability, or mental disability. Disability-based harassment need not result in tangible loss of job benefits to be actionable.

The harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions and create a hostile work environment, showing a concerted pattern of conduct rather than isolated incidents.

Disability harassment takes many forms: mockery or ridicule of a disability, unwelcome comments about medical conditions, ostracism or exclusion from workplace activities, derogatory nicknames or references, physical imitation of a disability, and spreading information about an employee's medical condition.

Employers bear strict liability for harassment by supervisors, and negligence-based liability for harassment by coworkers and non-employees where the employer knew or should have known about the conduct and failed to take corrective action.

See our California workplace harassment guide for the full harassment framework, including the severe-or-pervasive standard and employer liability structure.

Retaliation for Accommodation Requests

Government Code § 12940(h) prohibits retaliation against an employee who opposes FEHA violations, files a complaint, or testifies in FEHA proceedings. Separately, retaliation against an employee for requesting a reasonable accommodation — regardless of whether the accommodation was granted — is an independent, actionable claim.

Retaliation timing is often dispositive. An adverse action occurring within ninety days of an accommodation request creates a suspicious sequence that California courts treat as strong circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive. For the full retaliation framework, see our California workplace retaliation guide.

Damages Available in California Disability Discrimination Cases

California FEHA disability cases provide among the most plaintiff-favorable damages structures in American employment law. Every category of damages is available, and most are uncapped.

Damages Category	Availability	Cap
Back pay (lost wages through trial)	✅	None
Front pay (future lost earnings)	✅	None
Lost benefits (health insurance, retirement, stock)	✅	None
Emotional distress damages	✅	None under FEHA
Punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294	✅ Where malice, oppression, or fraud is proven	Constitutional due process limits apply
Attorney's fees under Gov. Code § 12965(c)	✅ Mandatory to prevailing plaintiff	N/A
Costs of suit	✅ Recoverable	N/A
Injunctive relief (reinstatement)	✅	N/A
Prejudgment interest	✅	N/A

The availability of mandatory attorneys' fees transforms case economics. In cases where compensatory damages alone would not justify the cost of litigation, the fee-shift provision makes pursuit economically viable. This is a primary reason FEHA disability cases settle at materially higher amounts than similar ADA cases.

For the full treatment of FEHA damages across all discrimination claims, see our FEHA damages guide.

How to Prove a Disability Discrimination Claim

California disability discrimination claims proceed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework modified by California's "substantial motivating factor" causation standard under Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203. The proof framework typically involves four steps:

Step 1 — Prima facie case. The employee establishes that they had a qualifying disability or medical condition, were qualified for the position with or without reasonable accommodation, suffered an adverse employment action, and circumstances suggest a causal connection to the disability.

Step 2 — Employer's articulation. The employer must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action — typically a business judgment, performance concern, or operational decision.

Step 3 — Pretext. The employee must show that the employer's stated reason is pretextual and that the disability was a substantial motivating factor in the decision. Pretext evidence includes post-protected-activity performance documentation, shifting explanations across proceedings, comparator evidence showing similarly situated non-disabled employees were treated differently, and statistical patterns of adverse action against employees with disabilities.

Step 4 — Substantial motivating factor. Under Harris, the employee must prove that the disability was a substantial motivating factor — not the only reason, but a real and meaningful factor — in the adverse action. See our McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting guide for the full framework.

Reasonable accommodation and interactive process claims proceed on different elements focused on the employer's failure to respond to disability disclosure, request, or known condition — not on discriminatory motive. These claims often succeed where pure discrimination claims would face pretext disputes.

Statute of Limitations

California FEHA disability discrimination claims must be filed with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) within three years of the last discriminatory act. After the CRD issues a right-to-sue notice, the employee has one year to file a civil lawsuit. The three-year administrative filing deadline is a hard requirement — the CRD cannot accept claims filed after it.

For cases involving ongoing accommodation disputes or continuing interactive process failures, the "continuing violation" doctrine may extend the effective filing window. Under the doctrine, the three-year period runs from the last act in a continuous course of conduct rather than from the first act. Employer patterns of repeated refusal to accommodate often qualify under the continuing violation doctrine.

Workers' compensation retaliation claims under Labor Code § 132a — which often intersect with disability discrimination cases — have a one-year statute of limitations with the WCAB. When both theories apply, the shorter deadline controls the most urgent decision.

What to Do If You Suspect Disability Discrimination

Document everything immediately. Save all emails, texts, accommodation requests, medical documentation, and HR communications. Create a contemporaneous timeline of disclosure, accommodation requests, employer responses, and adverse actions. Documentation created at the time of events carries more evidentiary weight than reconstructions after termination.

Put accommodation requests in writing. Even if the employer has not required a written request, put your accommodation request in writing via email so the timing and substance are documented. Attach any medical documentation supporting the request.

Preserve records before losing access. If termination appears likely, download or forward important records to a personal email address while you still have system access. After termination, access to emails, performance reviews, and HR communications typically ends.

Request your personnel file. Under Labor Code § 1198.5, California employees have the right to inspect their personnel file. The employer must provide access within thirty days of request. Personnel files frequently contain information about the timing of performance documentation, promotions, discipline, and accommodation discussions.

Do not sign a severance agreement without attorney review. Severance agreements typically waive all employment claims including FEHA disability discrimination. You have 21 days to consider and 7 days to revoke under federal law for age-discrimination waivers, but California law gives you flexibility. Attorney review before signing can preserve claims worth many multiples of the severance amount.

Consult with specialized employment counsel promptly. Disability discrimination claims require fact-intensive analysis of the interactive process timeline, accommodation feasibility, and pretext evidence. Specialized counsel can evaluate whether pure discrimination, failure to accommodate, or failure to engage in the interactive process is the strongest theory — and often all three claims can be pursued in the same case.

Consider the CRD complaint process vs. direct civil filing. California employees can file directly with the CRD (which investigates) or file a complaint and immediately request a right-to-sue notice for civil court filing. Specialized counsel will evaluate which path best fits your specific case. The California Civil Rights Department complaint process provides information on the CRD framework.

Understand the FEHA damages structure. FEHA disability cases produce materially higher recoveries than ADA cases. Specialized California counsel experienced in FEHA practice will recognize claim value significantly above what ADA-focused practitioners estimate.

Frequently Asked Questions

What qualifies as a disability under California FEHA? A physical disability under FEHA includes any physiological disease, disorder, or condition that affects a body system and limits a major life activity. A mental disability includes mental or psychological disorders that limit a major life activity. A medical condition includes any health impairment related to cancer, cancer history, or genetic characteristics. The California threshold of "limits" a major life activity is lower than the federal ADA standard of "substantially limits."

Can my employer fire me for requesting a reasonable accommodation? No. California Government Code § 12940(h) prohibits retaliation against an employee for requesting reasonable accommodation, regardless of whether the accommodation was granted. Adverse action within ninety days of an accommodation request creates a suspicious sequence that California courts treat as strong circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive. The right to request accommodation is an independently protected activity under FEHA.

What is the interactive process and what must my employer do? Under Government Code § 12940(n), the employer must engage in a timely, good faith interactive process with the employee to determine effective reasonable accommodations. The employer must respond promptly to disability disclosures, gather necessary information without demanding excessive personal medical details, explore multiple accommodation options with the employee, consider alternatives when the preferred accommodation is not feasible, and document the discussion. Failure to engage in the interactive process is an independent FEHA violation separate from failure to accommodate.

Does my employer have to hold my job open indefinitely as an accommodation? No. However, under Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1331, a finite leave of greater than four months may be a reasonable accommodation under FEHA. Employers who terminate employees after exhausting FMLA or CFRA leave without analyzing whether additional finite leave would allow return to work face significant liability. The key question is whether the leave duration is finite and whether return to work at the end of the leave is reasonably expected.

How long do I have to file a disability discrimination claim in California? Three years to file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department from the date of the last discriminatory act. After the CRD issues a right-to-sue notice, one additional year to file a civil lawsuit. Cases involving ongoing accommodation disputes may benefit from the continuing violation doctrine, which can extend the effective filing window. Related workers' compensation retaliation claims under Labor Code § 132a have a one-year WCAB deadline — shorter deadlines control when multiple theories apply.

What damages can I recover in a California disability discrimination case? Economic damages include back pay, front pay, and lost benefits, including health insurance and retirement contributions. Non-economic damages cover emotional distress — uncapped under FEHA. Punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 are available where the employer acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. Attorney's fees are mandatory to the prevailing plaintiff under Government Code § 12965(c) — meaning the employer pays your legal costs if you win. The absence of caps on compensatory and punitive damages under FEHA yields recoveries materially higher than in comparable ADA cases.

Can I pursue disability discrimination and failure to accommodate in the same case? Yes. Disability discrimination under § 12940(a), failure to accommodate under § 12940(m), and failure to engage in the interactive process under § 12940(n) are three independent causes of action. An employee can prevail on one, two, or all three claims in the same case. Failure to engage in the interactive process is often the strongest theory because it focuses on documented employer conduct rather than on proving discriminatory motive.

DISCLOSURE 

This page is published and maintained by 1000Attorneys.com, a California State Bar Certified Lawyer Referral and Information Service, LRIS Certificate No. 0128, accredited by the American Bar Association and established in 2005. The information on this page is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. 1000Attorneys.com is not a law firm and does not provide legal representation. For legal advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified California attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where your claim arises.