We have not, however, addressed whether disability discrimination, like sex and age discrimination, can form the basis of a common law wrongful discharge claim. In Stevenson, we articulated a four-part test for determining whether a particular policy can support a common law wrongful discharge claim. Therefore, when the constitutional provision or statute articulating a public policy also includes certain substantive limitations in scope or remedy, these limitations also circumscribe the common law wrongful discharge cause of action. First, the FEHA clearly delineates a policy against disability discrimination in employment-at least in the case of employers of five or more employees. Moreover, the FEHA is just one expression of a much broader policy against disability discrimination that appears in a variety of legislative enactments.
Disability discrimination is indistinguishable in many ways from race and sex discrimination.
Disability sometimes impacts a person' s ability to perform a particular job, in which case the employer may treat a disabled employee differently than a nondisabled employee. Accordingly, just as disability discrimination in violation of section 132a does not alone establish a valid FEHA claim, it also does not alone establish a valid common law wrongful discharge claim. Furthermore, to the extent section 132a, the FEHA, and the common law remedies overlap, equitable principles preclude multiple recoveries for the same injury. We conclude that disability discrimination can form the basis of a common law wrongful discharge claim. Because section 132a does not provide the exclusive remedy for discrimination based on a work-related disability, the trial court was correct to overrule the demurrer to Dillon' s common law wrongful discharge cause of action.