About Our Law Firm



Our law firm practices only employment law. We never represent the employers in a dispute-only employees.

Contact us today for a free consultation:


(323) 982-8560 (LA)

(415) 839-8711 (Bay Area)

(714) 453-9090 (OC)

(858) 779-9781 (San Diego)

(805) 275-4501 (Ventura)

(888) 813-6369 (Toll-Free)


More About Us

Contact Us

E-Mail Subscriptions

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner



This is the second post in a series on several very important bills the California legislature passed in 2007 to protect employees that the Governor vetoed at the last possible moment last month.

SB 537

Despite supporting a strong new law providing protected leave to military spouses whose husbands or wives are on leave from service, the Governor promptly vetoed similar protections for employees needing leave for other, arguably more important reasons.

Senate Bill 537 would have given employees the right to take family medical leave to care for the following persons:

  1. The employee’s seriously ill children (regardless of their age);
  2. The employee’s seriously ill in-laws;
  3. The employee’s seriously ill grandparents or grandchildren;
  4. The employee’s seriously ill sibling; or
  5. The employee’s seriously ill domestic partner.

Without this bill, employees who have seriously ill adult children, young grandchildren or siblings may be forced to choose between either losing their job or caring for their loved ones.

Some might argue that these individuals are not “immediate” family, so the protections of family medical leave should not extend to them. However, the situation is not always so black and white. For example, if an adult child is not married, a parent might be the only person who is available to care for them.

Imagine having to work at your job while your younger sibling is dying at home because your employer will not let you take time off of work to care for them. This is a real dilemma for many employees who have their own immediate families to also think about and cannot afford to be terminated, but are also needed to care for other close family members.

These are the kinds of protections that should be “no brainers” under California law. If an employee’s domestic partner is seriously ill, they should be able to take time off to care for them. Period.

SB 549

Senate Bill 549 was a similar provision that would have allowed employees four days of bereavement leave if, for example, their spouse dies.

You may be thinking to yourself, what employer would fire an employee for going to their wife’s funeral? Well, I have seen it happen more than once and there is no law that prohibits it. Family medical leave protections disappear as soon as the person being cared for dies.

Do we really want to force someone to choose whether to go to their child’s funeral or lose their job?

Table of Contents for This Series

  1. Schwarzenegger “Terminates” Employee Rights (Part 1)-Why?
  2. Schwarzenegger “Terminates” Employee Rights (Part 2)-Difficult Choices
  3. Schwarzenegger “Terminates” Employee Rights (Part 3)-Family Values?

Tags

| | |


DISCLAIMER

0 Responses to “Schwarzenegger “Terminates” Employee Rights (Part 2)-Difficult Choices”

  1. No Comments

Leave a Reply





Categories

Monthly Archives