Treatment Limits Your Driving: Separate Travel Duties from Driving in an Accommodation Request

A medical restriction on driving does not, by itself, answer whether you can do your job. Identify the essential work that requires travel, whether personally operating a vehicle is part of that work, and what your clinician’s restrictions permit. Then discuss effective, safe alternatives through the accommodation process. A different way to reach a site may be feasible for one role and inadequate for another.

The California Civil Rights Department explains that covered employers with five or more employees must provide reasonable accommodation unless it creates undue hardship. The assessment is individualized: It concerns the actual job and the employee’s limitations. A restriction does not guarantee remote work, paid transportation, removal of essential duties, or the employee’s preferred arrangement. See CRD’s reasonable-accommodation guidance.

Separate the Work Destination from the Method of Getting There

Start with the duty, rather than the label on a restriction. Does the job require inspecting a customer’s installation, delivering goods while operating a vehicle, responding immediately to emergencies, or managing a project whose site visits are scheduled? Those are different functions. A request should explain how the essential function would still be performed under the proposed arrangement.

A California appellate opinion illustrates the distinction. In Knight v. Johnson Controls, Inc., the evidence showed that traveling to sites mattered to the project-team-leader role, but the worker had already used carpools, rideshare services, and public transportation. He also had considerable scheduling flexibility and had worked remotely much of the time. Those facts supported the jury’s conclusion that personally driving was not essential in that particular role. Knight, No. A170587, slip op. at 13–15 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2026).

That opinion is unpublished. California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115 generally prohibits citing or relying on unpublished opinions in other actions, subject to its specified exceptions. The decision supplies a concrete illustration; the governing statutory duties and the facts of your job need independent evaluation.

Ask for Focused Medical Clarification

A useful medical note distinguishes driving restrictions from other limits: The hours when the employee cannot work, communicate, use a computer, or safely perform another duty may differ. Ask the treating clinician to clarify the duration, frequency, anticipated review date, and work-related restrictions relevant to the proposed arrangement. Do not replace medical advice with an employee’s or manager’s assumption that an activity is safe.

In Knight, the letters and the employee’s description of his abilities did not align neatly. The court explained that the employer could have clarified the discrepancies by discussing the proposed accommodations and seeking further medical information. It did not establish that an employee may disregard a clinician’s driving restriction. Knight, slip op. at 13–19.

You ordinarily do not need to turn an accommodation request into a full clinical history. Keep the discussion focused on the functional limitations and information needed to evaluate effective accommodations. If a request for medical information seems excessive or unclear, seek clarification rather than silently stopping the process.

Prepare a Concrete Travel and Coverage Proposal

Use facts from the actual job to help both sides evaluate feasibility:

• Travel pattern: Identify typical destinations, frequency, duration, advance notice, and trips that cannot be rescheduled. Distinguish scheduled visits from genuine emergencies.
• Existing ways of performing the duty: Note permitted carpools, other transportation, remote tasks, and coverage already used before the medical restriction. Past practice is evidence to evaluate, not an automatic entitlement to continue it.
• Treatment and recovery windows: Match the proposed schedule to the clinician’s actual restrictions. A schedule that conflicts with those restrictions is not a safe solution.
• Temporary coverage: Explain who has historically handled brief absences, what work would remain with the employee, and whether coverage could reasonably continue. Do not assume another worker can permanently take over an essential duty.
• Review point: Propose when to reassess the arrangement if the restriction or operational demands change.

These are discussion tools, not a prescribed form. CRD states that the law does not require its sample accommodation forms and that using them does not create a presumption that discrimination did not occur.

Hypothetical: A Scheduled Site Visit Versus a Driving Role

This is an illustration, not a legal or medical prediction. An employee must attend occasional scheduled site meetings but is temporarily restricted from driving after treatment. A proposal to use safe alternative transportation and schedule visits outside the restriction window addresses how the travel duty would still be performed. Its feasibility depends on the job, the restriction, the available arrangement, and hardship considerations.

A different employee’s essential work is personally operating a delivery vehicle throughout the shift. Simply arranging transportation to the workplace does not solve the restriction on performing that duty. Other available accommodations may need evaluation. Calling both jobs “travel positions” hides the distinction the interactive process needs to examine.

Keep the Exchange Open When the Proposal Is Unclear

Explain unanswered questions in writing and request a focused discussion. An employee should provide relevant information and respond to reasonable requests; an employer should evaluate available effective accommodations rather than treating an unclear note as the end of the conversation. Under CRD guidance, the process can also be triggered when the employer becomes aware of a possible accommodation need.

Preserve the request, medical clarification, actual job description, relevant past practices, proposals, responses, and reasons an alternative was accepted or rejected. Those records help distinguish an unavailable accommodation from a communication failure. They do not, alone, prove liability.

Do not resign or ignore a medical restriction based on an article about another worker’s damages award. If the process stalls, get advice about the specific job and procedural options before making an irreversible employment decision. Read the Knight case analysis for its evidence and limits, or visit our employment practice for services and contact information.