No, a temporary light-duty job doesn’t have to become permanent. The Court of Appeal held in Raine v. City of Burbank (2006) that an employer that created a temporary assignment “has no duty to transform that accommodation into a permanent position” once the disability becomes permanent. A Civil Rights Council regulation agrees a temporary job isn’t itself an accommodation. Ending light duty still requires a new interactive process and a real search for vacant positions, and skipping that step is where most of these claims come from.
What did Raine decide?
That temporary help isn’t a permanent promise. A police officer injured on the job worked a front-desk assignment for years while he tried to recover. When his doctors said he wouldn’t improve, the city wouldn’t make the desk job permanent at his officer rank and pay. In Raine v. City of Burbank (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1215, a published decision, the court affirmed summary judgment for the employer.
The court adopted the federal rule under the ADA, explaining that “an employer who has created such a temporary assignment has no duty to transform that accommodation into a permanent position once it is informed the employee’s disability has become permanent.” The opinion added that the same rule applies under FEHA, whose accommodation provisions track the ADA.
The policy reason matters for how employers write their programs. Courts don’t want to punish employers for being generous. If every temporary assignment became permanent, employers would stop offering them.
What do the FEHA regulations say about temporary positions?
They allow them, without counting them as the accommodation. California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11068(d)(3) states: “Although reassignment to a temporary position is not considered a reasonable accommodation under these regulations, an employer or other covered entity may offer, and an employee may choose to accept or reject, a temporary assignment during the interactive process.”
That sentence cuts both ways. A temporary assignment helps an employer keep a recovering employee working. But it doesn’t satisfy the duty to accommodate. When the temporary job ends, the employer still has to look for a lasting accommodation in the employee’s own job or a vacant position.
The same regulation limits how far that search must go. Section 11068(d)(4) says the employer “is not required to create a new position to accommodate an employee with a disability to a greater extent than an employer would offer a new position to any employee, regardless of disability.”
What must an employer do before ending light duty?
Reopen the interactive process and look for vacancies. Under section 11068(d)(1), an employer “shall ascertain through the interactive process suitable alternate, vacant positions and offer an employee such positions, for which the employee is qualified,” including when the employee can no longer perform the core functions of the job even with accommodation.
Two more rules shape that search. If no comparable vacancy exists, subdivision (d)(2) allows reassignment to a lower graded or lower paid position. And under subdivision (d)(5), the employee with a disability “is entitled to preferential consideration of reassignment to a vacant position over other applicants and existing employees,” subject in most cases to a bona fide seniority system.
In practice, a defensible ending looks like this: updated medical restrictions, a meeting with the employee to discuss them, a documented review of open positions the employee could fill, an offer of any that fit, and a written explanation if none do. Employers that just tell the employee the light-duty period is over, with no search, give the plaintiff a failure-to-accommodate claim and a failure-to-engage claim, even if no vacancy existed.
The firm’s post on failure to engage in the interactive process covers that separate claim.
| Step | What the law says | Defense value |
|---|---|---|
| Offer temporary light duty | Allowed, but not itself an accommodation (§ 11068(d)(3)) | Keeps the employee working while recovery is assessed |
| Disability becomes permanent | No duty to convert the temporary job (Raine) | Lets the employer end a temporary role |
| Search for vacant positions | Required through the interactive process (§ 11068(d)(1)) | Documented search defeats most accommodation claims |
| No vacancy exists | No duty to create a new position (§ 11068(d)(4)) | Supports separation or leave as the next step |
Who should run the vacancy search?
Someone who can see the whole company. In many cases, the light-duty employee’s own manager handles the end of the assignment and checks only the openings in that department. That’s too narrow. The search should cover every location and department where the employee could realistically work with the restrictions, for the period when the decision is made, and it should be done by HR or someone with access to the full list of openings.
The record of the search matters as much as the search. A short memo listing each open position reviewed, whether it fit the restrictions, and whether the employee had the qualifications is the document a court will look for. If the employee says a particular opening would have worked, the employer can point to that memo and explain why it didn’t. Without it, the dispute becomes a credibility contest about what was considered, and those disputes usually go to a jury.
Timing matters too. The search should cover positions open at the time of the decision and those expected to open soon. An employer that ends light duty a week before a suitable job is posted will have a hard time explaining why it couldn’t wait.
When can light duty become a trap?
When it isn’t really temporary. Raine protects assignments that were created as temporary. If an employer lets an employee stay in a modified job for years with no end date, no updated restrictions, and no discussion of what comes next, a plaintiff will argue it became a permanent position the employee was performing. That argument is harder to answer than the one in Raine.
Three habits keep the assignment temporary. Put the temporary nature in writing when the assignment starts. Tie it to medical restrictions with review dates. Revisit it at each review instead of letting it roll forward by default.
Workers’ compensation adds another layer. Most light-duty assignments start with a work injury, which brings in the separate rule against discriminating because of an industrial injury under Labor Code section 132a. A decision to end light duty should be consistent with how the employer treats other injured and non-injured employees with similar restrictions. The firm’s post on workers’ compensation retaliation under section 132a covers that claim.
Before ending a temporary modified-duty assignment
- Preserve the light-duty offer letter, medical restrictions and updates, the interactive process notes, and the emails and texts about the assignment, under a litigation hold once a dispute arises.
- Calendar the next medical review and any response deadline on a demand or CRD complaint, and check for an arbitration agreement and an EPLI policy with notice requirements.
- Identify who made the light-duty decisions and who will run the vacancy search, and avoid any action that could look like retaliation for the injury or a leave request.
- Pull the list of open positions during the search period, the job descriptions, and the employee’s qualifications for each.
- Talk to counsel before ending the assignment, separating the employee, or offering severance.
Accommodation disputes are among the most common FEHA claims. The firm’s page on defending California employers in employment cases describes how those cases are handled.
Light-duty questions employers ask
Do we have to offer light duty at all?
Not as a standalone duty. FEHA requires reasonable accommodation, and a temporary assignment isn’t treated as one under the regulations. Many employers offer light duty anyway, because it keeps injured employees working and can reduce workers’ compensation costs. If the employer offers it, the program should be applied consistently to employees with similar restrictions.
Can we pay a lower rate for the light-duty job?
Often, if the work is different and the pay matches what the employer pays for that work. The regulations allow reassignment to a lower paid position when no comparable vacancy exists. Pay decisions for injured employees also implicate section 132a, so the rate should follow a written, consistent rule, not a case-by-case judgment.
What if the employee refuses a vacant position we offer?
An employee may reject a reassignment. If the employer offered a suitable vacant position that met the restrictions, and documented the offer, that offer is strong evidence the employer met its duty. The employer should still discuss other options, including leave, before taking any separation step, and should keep a record of the employee’s reasons.
Does Raine apply to employees who weren’t hurt at work?
Yes. The holding is about FEHA’s accommodation duty, which applies to any disability, whether the injury happened at work or not. Workers’ compensation rules apply only to industrial injuries. For non-industrial conditions, the CFRA leave rules and pregnancy disability leave rules may also affect timing.
If an injured employee says light duty can’t end
If your company is ending a temporary modified-duty assignment, or has received a claim after one ended, the written terms and the vacancy search usually decide whether the claim has merit. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including claims involving disability accommodation and light-duty assignments. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The regulation is California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11068. The case is Raine v. City of Burbank (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1215.
This post is general information about California and federal employment law as of November 7, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment statutes, regulations, and court decisions change often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.