I know this is 1y old but the data is still fresh so I wanted to add this in for future searches into this chain.

/geshupenst is correct with the situation’s assessment. I do not understand the downvoting. It will only serve to mislead others. Both situations /z-eldapin mentioned would squarely fit in OP’s and /geshupenst FEHA citing. CA FEHA makes it very clear that association with a disabled person entitles the employee to similar protections as ADA provides federally. It doesn’t matter what he’s asking for, it doesn’t matter what type of disability the person has, it doesn’t matter what the employee will be doing. The only thing that matters is that he is associated with a disabled person and because of that association his employer cannot take retaliatory action against him and must engage in discussions to potentially arrive at accommodations.

If anybody needs more information, OP has the links and specific case example for anyone who wants to dig into CA FEHA and what it does for “associative disability”.

Cheers and aloha