Exercising a peremptory challenge against a single prospective juror for a discriminatory reason forbidden by CCP 231.5 is enough to require reveral of the judgment in favor of the party that exercised the discriminatory peremptory. In 2015, the Legislature amended CCP 231.5 to incorporate FEHA’s definition of discrimination (Gov. Code 11135). This decision broadly interprets the two sections, reading them together, to prohibit use of a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror based on the juror’s own race, etc. or the race, etc. of a person with whom the juror is actually or seen as being associated. Among the characteristics which cannot serve as a basis for discrimination or a peremptory challenge is physical disability. In this case, to overcome the suspicion that he challenged prospective jurors on the ground of their Hispanic ethnicity, defendant’s counsel said he challenged two jurors because they had physically disabled children and thus might be unduly favorable to plaintiff who also had a disabled child. The excuse walked the defendant from frying pan to fire. Challenging two jurors on the ground of their association with disabled persons was discriminatory and required reversal of the judgment.