Under both California and federal law, a person is entitled to receive accommodations for their disabilities without having to provide any medical evidence if the need for the accommodations is clear. See, e.g., 2 CCR § 11069(c)(2).
This is an important legal protection because the medical system has a long history of gatekeeping disabled people and downplaying their needs. The federal and California legislatures and courts have thus recognised that accommodations cannot be locked behind doctors' notes.
Indeed, even if an employee is not medically disabled, they are still legally entitled to accommodations for disability if the need for those accommodations is apparent. See, e.g., Moore v. Regents of University of California, 248 Cal. App. 4th 216 (2016).
Google brazenly believes that the law does not apply to it, so it openly announces in its internal policies that it will not even entertain the notion of accommodations unless the employee first produces medical evidence of disability. See "Step 1" of the official policy below. 
Google is aware that its (non-)accommodations policy is illegal, because I've told them so. Their response was simply to reiterate categorically that they will not engage in a discussion of accommodations until medical evidence is provided by the employee. This is illegal.
Google should put the brakes on its recent spate of self-congratulatory propaganda until it brings its official policies into compliance with the law.
The language quoted below from Moore v. Regents of University of California clearly explains that an employer cannot refuse to offer accommodations simply because an employee has not provided proof of a medical disability. See 248 Cal. App. 4th 216, 242 (2016).
A number of people have asked me whether it was okay for me to publish Google's official accommodations policy on Twitter. Rest assured that this is not a problem. Applicable law protects my right to disclose Google's working conditions. See, e.g., Cal. Labor Code § 232.5.
I've also been asked whether it was okay for me to reproduce a work subject to copyright, namely, Google's accommodations policy. It's true that the policy may be subject to copyright, but reproduction "for purposes such as criticism" is quintessential fair use. 17 USC § 107.
A number of people have asked me whether Google's (non-)accommodations policy is illegal in and of itself, or if it would only be illegal if applied to a particular person's circumstances.
The answer is that the policy is illegal in and of itself. Here's why:
The answer is that the policy is illegal in and of itself. Here's why:
Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, "[a]ny person who ... proposes to engage in unfair competition" is breaking the law and "may be enjoined". The term "unfair competition" includes any "any unlawful ... business act or practice". Id. § 17200.
Refusing to provide accommodations or enter into the interactive process when required is an unlawful practice. Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(m) & (n). Google's policy is a statement that Google will not make accommodations or enter into the interactive process when required by law.
Hence, the policy is a proposal to engage in unfair competition, and it is illegal in and of itself and it may be enjoined in an action brought by any of the public prosecutors listed in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 even if the policy has not been applied to anyone.
