10/07/2025
A recent federal court ruling against Grimmway Farms, the world’s largest carrot grower out of Bakersfield, has shed light on how employers can misuse the interactive process to sideline workers rather than support them. U.S. District Judge Dale A. Drozd found that Grimmway Farms engaged in systemic disability discrimination by forcing hundreds of injured or disabled workers onto unpaid leave, instead of exploring accommodations that would have allowed them to remain in their jobs. The California Civil Rights Department (CRD), which brought the case, hailed the ruling as a major victory for farmworkers and disability rights.
At the center of the case was Grimmway Farm’s “interactive process”. Rather than meaningfully considering accommodations such as modified-duties or assistive technology, the company used the process as a funnel to remove injured workers from the workforce all together. Court records show that the scope of the practice was widespread. Between 2016 and 2024, about 600 workers entered the process and at least 96% were placed on unpaid leave, even when workers had successfully performed light-duty jobs. For many injured workers, this meant a devastating loss of income and a choice between returning to work without accommodations or leaving their jobs altogether.
This case illustrates a broader problem where employers use the interactive process as a mechanism to push out injured workers rather than a tool to keep these workers employed. CAAA Board Member Beatriz Trejo, an applicant’s attorney at Chain, Cohn, and Clark in Bakersfield reviewed the case for a local news outlet and noted that out of 199 employees referred from Grimmway’s workers’ compensation department, 197 ended up on unpaid leave. As Trejo explained, this represents a breakdown in the process that was designed to protect employees, instead turning it into a shield for employer practices that undercut workers’ rights.
For applicants’ attorneys practicing in California, the Grimmway decision is a clear reminder to scrutinize how employers handle the interactive process. When employers game the system, going through the motions while systematically denying real accommodations, injured workers are left without wages or workplace protections. This ruling reinforces the need for vigilance and advocacy to ensure the interactive process functions as the law intends: a genuine, good-faith effort to keep injured workers in their jobs.
