Most past legislation along these lines has tried to either require English-only in places of employment or allowed employers to require their employees to speak English.  Conservative California legislators made a half-hearted attempt at passing such a law a few years ago without gaining much traction.

As we have pointed out in the past, such laws are invalid because they violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which specifically prohibits such policies unless there is an actual “business necessity” for them.  For example, a nurse could be required to speak only English to a doctor during surgery.  However, upon further examination I discovered that the Tennessee bill does not even try to defy federal law.

The Tennessee bill is an example of the worst kind of law:  one that has no valid purpose except to pick on a minority group.  All the law does is restate the Title VII language that allows such a policy only where there is a “business or safe workplace necessity” for it.

The law waters down its language even further by stating that an employer cannot require English-only when an employee is on a break or talking to co-workers.  Essentially, the law can be re-stated as follows:  “Employers can require an employee to speak English, but only if it is necessary for them to do so”.

In short, all the Tennessee law does is restate federal law, but in a deceptive way.  Instead of saying that English-only policies are illegal except where justified by business necessity, it purports to give employers permission (or even encourage them) to create such policies if necessary, which likely is not a problem to begin with and employers are already free to do under federal law.

All states in this country are in the middle of a fiscal crisis that is putting their legislatures’ budgetary skills to the test.  There are not enough hours in the day for most of them to come up with solutions to their states’ most pressing problems.  However, Tennessee’s legislature apparently decided that writing and passing a law that has no legal affect on anyone whatsoever, but instead tries to ostracize those who either do not speak English or have difficulty doing so.  That is just mean.

Tags

Discrimination | National Origin Discrimination | Policy : Legislation | Policy : Opinion | Race Discrimination

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• Q&A: Termination for Getting Pregnant is Illegal
• Q&A: Retaliation by Jerk Boss is Illegal
• Q&A: Employee Witnesses Protected from Retaliation

The new California employment law would allow employers to do checks on employees who handle large amounts of money or other sensitive positions.  While I recognize that in these situations there may be some correlation between a history of poor financial choices and the ability to do certain jobs, in today’s economy the usefulness of this information is, in my opinion, declining at the same time employers’ use of it as a hiring tool seems to be increasing.

I talk to potential clients every day with tragic stories of loss about being unemployed for months while desperately searching for new employment.  Many of these people are about to lose their homes, have had their automobiles repossessed and even have experienced the demoralizing reality of sending their children off to college this fall without being able to give them any assistance with their tuition or living expenses.

When I hear from these people that their recent poor credit history, which itself is usually a direct result of either unemployment or serious illness, is now the reason they cannot find a job, it makes me angry.  The problem is that many of these employers now receive dozens, if not hundreds of applications for a handful of positions, so the applicant never gets a chance to explain their situation before they are eliminated early in the process based solely on their credit report.

Studies have shown in the past that the average employee’s credit scores has no correlation with their job performance, but as a matter of public policy I think that when unemployment is in the double-digits throughout much of California this is an issue that needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

Tags

California Employment Law | Discrimination | Policy : Legislation | Policy : Opinion | Privacy | References

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

For example, one of the most prevalent forms of class action employment law claims following a layoff is based on age discrimination.  A company often decides that the best way to cut costs in a layoff is to get rid of those with the most seniority, because they are usually the ones with the highest compensation.

However, California employment laws state that where an employer terminates an employee because of their high compensation relative to other employees, that is proof of age discrimination where the high compensation is a result of that employee's age.

In other situations, the "decider" of who stays and who goes in a layoff may have their own biases (conscious or unconscious) against certain groups of people based on race, gender, national origin or other protected characteristics.

The easiest way to prove this sort of discrimination is through statistics.  I have seen many layoffs where only those over 40 are laid off and then later replaced by new employees fresh out of college.  Similar evidence can be used where a male decision maker only lays off the females because the men have families at home.

Sometimes the only way to tell if this sort of thing is occurring at the time without the benefit of statistics is through anecdotal evidence.  However, under federal employment law if you are part of a mass layoff and over 40 your employer in most cases must provide you with a list of all other employees being laid off, including their ages and position.

Tags

Age Discrimination | California Employment Law | Discrimination | Family Status Discrimination | Gender Discrimination | National Origin Discrimination | Race Discrimination | Wrongful Termination

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

I think part of this might be attributable to a common employment law misconception among employees, which is that they somehow have less rights if they are "laid off" than if they had been "terminated".  The only real difference, though, is that when someone is being laid off it usually means several employees are being terminated at the same time.

In wrongful termination cases this does give the employer a bit of an advantage in mounting a defense by pointing out that the employee in question was not singled out but instead terminated as part of a "restructuring" or "downsizing" along with several others.

However, someone still has to decide who to layoff and if that person has biases against older workers, working mothers, employees with disabilities, etc. that can often show through in trends after examining the characteristics of who was let go versus who was kept.

Personal vendettas can also come into play by supervisors who, for example, may not like how one of their employees complains about working long hours without overtime pay and on that basis alone selects them for layoff.

The most important thing a laid-off employee can do to protect their employment law rights is to objectively look at the situation and consider whether it makes sense that they were laid off, but their peers were kept.  For example, who has the most seniority?  Where do they rank in sales performance?  Are their performance reviews better or worse than the others?

The next step is to consider whether there is any illegal reason the decision maker (or someone with their ear) would want them to be terminated instead of another, less-qualified employee.  If there is such a reason and it makes more sense than simply selecting them as the most logical person to be laid off, the employee might want to contact an employee rights attorney to run the situation by them.

The best barometer I have found in employment law cases is that if the employee can look at the situation objectively and feels in their "gut" that something is "fishy," that usually ends up being the case when we start digging deeper.

Tags

California Employment Law | Discrimination | Retaliation | Wrongful Termination

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

Except for a few bad experiences (every company has some bad apples and law firms are no exception), I have found most opposing counsel at Littler to be professional and relatively pleasant to deal with under the circumstances.

You will not often hear me singing the "enemy's" praises, but Littler recently received a perfect score (100) on the 2009 Corporate Equality Index.  This rating is given each year by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, which is an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered ("GLBT") Americans.

I find it refreshing that a law firm dedicated to defending employers who have been accused of violating their employees' rights has taken the steps necessary to discourage discrimination "at home".

Employment defense counsel are always "talking the talk" to me about how their clients are committed to diversity, non-discrimination, etc. and would have "never" done what we are accusing them doing.

It looks as though Littler actually "walks the walk" (even if their clients do not always follow their example).  Congrats on a job well done.

Tags

Discrimination | Harassment | Policy : Opinion | Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• Q&A: Termination for Getting Pregnant is Illegal
• Q&A: Retaliation by Jerk Boss is Illegal
• Q&A: Employee Witnesses Protected from Retaliation

A good example of this is Harman v. San Francisco (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 407.  In that case, the jury ruled that the defendant had a policy of "reverse" discrimination against white males, but only awarded the employee $30,300 in compensatory damages, including lost wages, etc.  However, the court also awarded Mr. Harman over $1 million in attorney's fees.

The case lasted almost eight years between the trial and appeals, but in the end the employee prevailed.  When a client wins and is entitled to attorney's fees, the court evaluates how much time the attorney spent on the case and sets an hourly rate comparable to similar attorneys in the community.  Unless the attorney performed substantial, time-consuming tasks for the case which were clearly unnecessary, all of the time will be reimbursed by the defendant.

Although several management-side employment attorneys were outraged by this decision, the employee (and his attorney) should not be penalized for spending the necessary time on the case to win.  While our firm does a great deal of litigation and we do not mind "fighting", we start almost every case with a good-faith attempt at exploring informal settlement options with the defendant employer.  Both sides should want to do this for the simple fact that once attorney's fees start accumulating, both sides become more adversarial and "invested," so they feel they have to "win".

Most savvy employment defense counsel are aware that where a claim appears to be valid, it is very much in their client's best interest to at least try and resolve the case quickly.  This case is a prime example of a situation where the defendant likely could have settled for a fraction of what they ended up paying, yet they instead chose to "fight" and paid the price.

I am not suggesting that employees (or attorneys) should pursue (or refuse to settle) cases solely to rack up substantial attorney's fees, but if a case has merit the employee should not have to wonder if their lawyer's bill will be more than what they actually recover in the case, which is the case is many other parts of the country.

Tags

Attorney's Fees | California Employment Law | Discrimination | Policy : Opinion

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

The fact that women disproportionately care for children in the United States is likely a direct contributor to the fact that women still tend to make less money for doing the same work, despite the EPA and other laws.  This is because such discrimination is often subtle.

For example, a woman might take time off to care for children and when she returns to work make less money than her male counterparts because they have more "seniority".  While this might be legitimate, "seniority" is sometimes used as a synonym for "loyalty" or "dependability" in reference to the possibility of the woman leaving again to have another child or as punishment for leaving before.

Additionally, mothers who remain in the workforce after having children often start working part-time hours and the other employees often receive a higher rate of pay for "full-time" work.  Reducing a part-time worker's salary is not per se illegal, but there are certainly pitfalls.  For example, if mothers who switch to part-time have their salary reduced, then it still must be comparable to part-time male workers.  Also, if a woman cuts her hours by 50% and her pay is reduced by 70%, then it can be argued she is being "penalized" for working less.

While not always illegal, an employer would likely have to prove that this is the same rate ALL part-time workers have their wages reduced by and/or that there is a legitimate business reason for doing so.

Tags

California Employment Law | Family Status Discrimination | Gender Discrimination | Pregnancy Discrimination | Wages and Hours

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

In these situations, the employer's concerns about how an employee or job applicant's home life could affect their job performance are often valid in theory, but not in application. In cases such as these the employer only assumes that the employee will not be willing or able to do the job and has no reason (other than stereotypical views of women) to make their assumptions.

One common example is where an applicant is not hired because the employer assumes she will not be willing or able to work the long hours the job requires because of her (assumed) duties at home. However, it is quite possible that the husband/father or another family member has taken on some of the childcare duties to allow her to work more. Because this decision relies on the employer's stereotypical assumptions about women, this could constitute illegal discrimination.

It is true that it might be valid in certain cases not to hire an employee because she cannot perform the job due to family responsibilities, but the employer would have to have some actual proof on which to base their decision. For example, if during the interview the employer mentioned the job would require her to work no less than 80 hours per week and the applicant responded that she could not possibly work more than 40 hours with two kids at home, then this could be a valid reason not to hire her.

One oft-cited case of this type is Trezza v. Hartford, Inc., 1998 WL 912101 (S.D.N.Y.). In that case, an attorney was not even considered for a promotion because it would have required extensive travel. Her employers simply assumed that she would not be interested in the position because of her family and promoted a less-qualified man instead.

The employee was also told that once her husband made enough money she would be "sitting at home eating bon bons" and the company's vice president commented on the "incompetence and laziness of working mothers".

Tags

California Employment Law | Discrimination | Family Status Discrimination | Gender Discrimination | Harassment | Marital Status Discrimination | Pregnancy Discrimination

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

There are many ways family status discrimination can happen in the workplace, some of which are very subtle and difficult to prove. Other types are not subtle at all, such as the topic of today's post, which is what I call "Moral Stereotyping".

Moral Stereotyping Defined

Generally in family status discrimination claims the employer is largely concerned about how the employee's caregiver responsibilities affect them, such as increased absences, less dedication to the job, less focus, unreliability, etc. However. one of the unique aspects of moral stereotyping is that the employer is often more concerned about the well-being of the employee, her child her family or other paternalistic rationale.

Yes, it is true that even in 2008 there are many employers out there who still believe a woman "belongs" at home and that their primary duty is to raise children even to take care of their husband. In these situations, employers might even terminate an employee (to their own detriment) in an effort to force the employee to do what they believe is "right".

Some commonly-cited motivations based on this theory are discussed below.

"Women Belong at Home"

The notion that a woman simply "belongs at home" is the most common way in which these issues are expressed by management. This is a prime example of the sorts of gender stereotypes that foster discrimination against these employees.

The motivation here is not necessarily what is best for the employee or her child, but instead what the employer thinks she "should" do based on traditional gender roles. These employers think that even if the wife makes twice as much as her husband, she should quit her job to raise the children.

A more poignant way of expressing this can be found in Knussman v. Maryland, 272 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2001), where the employee was simply told "God made women to have babies". Speaking of God, several employers do cite their religious views as a basis for this discrimination, which exposes the employer to an additional claim for religious discrimination.

"Children Need Their Mothers"

The traditional notion that children must spend as much time as possible with their mothers is certainly ingrained in our society. This category of cases usually involves an employer who believes they know what is best for the child and believes they are acting in the child's best interest when they terminate or failure to hire the employee.

For example, in Moore v. Alabama State University, 980 F.Supp. 426 (MD Ala 1997), the employee's supervisor told her he believed women should stay at home with their family and denied her a promotion because the new job would involve too much travel for a "married mother", despite the fact that she applied for the job and had already worked out a plan with her husband to accommodate the travel.

Moral stereotyping is not limited to male management employees. Often these issues can come into play when an employee's female supervisor either has grown children or grandchildren and holds strong views on these issues they are not afraid to make known.

A variation on this theme is where an employee's supervisor expresses their belief that placing a child in day care is harmful to their development.

Men are the Breadwinners

Gender stereotypes are also commonly used against men. It is no longer unusual for a husband to drop down to part-time when a child is born while his wife, who might make more money than he does, continues to work full-time.

In certain testosterone-fueled workplaces, this can lead to harassment of "Mr. Mom" by co-workers or he might simply be denied the opportunity to work part-time, even though females are allowed to do so.

This type of claim is rapidly becoming more common as working mothers continue to enter the workplace and men volunteer to help with caregiver duties.

"Reverse" Caregiver Discrimination

Occasionally I come across a case where an employee has suffered "reverse" caregiver discrimination.

For example, if a layoff occurs in a company and a supervisor decides to terminate an above-average, single male employee and instead keep the below-average, married father of two.

In California, this more of an example of "marital status" discrimination, which is specifically prohibited under California law, but these facts could also constitute family status discrimination.

I use this example here because the supervisor is simply applying his own stereotypes and morals to "protect" the man with a family based on his own morals and values instead of what is "fair" to the better-performing employee or what is in the company's best interest.

Bringing Moral Stereotyping Cases

Moral stereotyping cases tend to be the most lucrative and easiest to prove among the various types of caregiver discrimination for a number of reasons.

First, they often involve the most inflammatory evidence that is offensive to the highest number of potential jurors. If a supervisor testifies to his belief that "God made women to have babies" and that this belief was why he did not hire the plaintiff, you can bet that many on the jury may be quite hostile towards the company when awarding the plaintiff damages.

Second, the supervisor who takes the wrongful actions against a plaintiff in such as case is often quite vocal about their motivations when they terminate or refuse to hire because (1) they truly believe they are doing the "right" thing, (2) they want the employee to know that this is the "right" thing and (3) it never crosses their mind that they are handing the employee a substantial lawsuit by "lecturing" them.

Tags

California Employment Law | Discrimination | Family Status Discrimination | Gender Discrimination | Harassment | Hostile Work Environment | Marital Status Discrimination | Medical Leave Discrimination | Pregnancy Discrimination | Wrongful Termination

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

Widespread use of this claim is so recent that it does not even have a consistent name in legal circles. We call it "family status discrimination", but others call it "family responsibilities discrimination", "FSD" or "FRD" for short, "caregiver discrimination" and countless other names, but they are all the same idea.

This post is the first in a series on the subject which is fairly expansive, quite interesting and can also get confusing.

The Impetus

The reason I bring this subject up now is because I just started a case representing two women against the same former employer who violated almost all of the various family status discrimination theories in dealing with one or both of them.

It is a very interesting case for several reasons, not the least of which is the ironic twist that the employer is an organization that actively promotes equality for women and the building of strong families as its mission.

While settlement discussions are under way, I cannot speak too much about this case in particular, but if it does end up in litigation I will post more details such as the identity of the employer.

The Legal Basis

I should first point out that the term "family status" is not mentioned anywhere in federal or California employment law statutes.

Instead, these claims are based on other existing employment laws, such as gender, marital status or pregnancy discrimination. The Family Medical Leave Act, California Family Rights Act, Pregnancy Disability Leave and other statutes also come into play.

Family status discrimination is one of those areas where employee-rights attorneys are very "creative" in crafting their legal theories. New ways of approaching the claims are constantly being tested in courts across the country and often prevailing.

This series is meant to be an exploration of these various theories and how they can be used under California law to protect employees.

Tags

California Employment Law | Discrimination | Family Medical Leave | Family Status Discrimination | Gender Discrimination | Harassment | Hostile Work Environment | Marital Status Discrimination | Pregnancy Discrimination

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

Hime & Company, a Tokyo-based marketing firm, offers paid leave to employees who have a bad breakup, termed "heartache leave".  While this is quite generous and one could argue that such a leave is often necessary to regain your composure, the terms are quite interesting.  Employees 24 years old or younger only get one day off, those between 25 and 29 get two days off and those 30 or older get three days.

CEO Miki Hiradate explains the reason for these different policies: "Women in their 20s can find their next love quickly, but it's tougher for women in their 30s, and their break-ups tend to be more serious."

I won't go into the age discrimination implications for women over 40, because this story is from Japan and the odds of this happening in the US are virtually none (unless you work at Tribune, Co.--then all bets are off).

Tags

Age Discrimination | California Employment Law | Discrimination | Employee Handbooks | Family Medical Leave | Medical Leave Discrimination

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

However, failure to adequately communicate such policies is a frequent problem, where only 80% of those companies rate anti-discrimination training "either somewhat or very important".

This study is certainly timely in the debate over Tribune company's hopelessly inadequate anti-harassment policy. Training employees using such a policy might actually have a negative effect, since it does not even recognize creation of a hostile work environment as illegal harassment.

Tags

California Employment Law | Discrimination | Employee Handbooks | Harassment | Hostile Work Environment | Sexual Harassment

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

The Decision

The Court decided that employers can terminate employees in California who use medical marijuana with a doctor's prescription for a valid medical reason and not be held liable for doing so under state employment discrimination laws.

The majority spent almost all of their opinion talking about how the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (the referendum that decriminalized medical marijuana under California law) does not explicitly say employers are prohibited from terminating an employee for using medical marijuana at home.

However, the majority seems to have forgotten that the case was brought under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") and not the Compassionate Use Act ("CUA"), seemingly concluding that because the CUA was not violated, neither was the FEHA.

The only reason that the CUA has any application here at all is by virtue of the fact that it is the reason that the plaintiff can say he was not breaking state law. Arguably, if state law says something is illegal, then state anti-discrimination laws cannot be held to protect an employee who breaks it. However, the fact that the plaintiff broke no California law should mean that the legality or illegality of the conduct is a non-issue.

FEHA Disability Discrimination Analysis

In California, employers are required to "reasonably accommodate" individuals with disabilities, which basically means that they need to work with the employee and their doctor to determine what the employee needs to be able to do their job and treat their disability. In Ragingwire, the employee simply wanted his employer to allow him to use medical marijuana at home during non-work hours.

The employer generally must allow any accommodation that does not cause it to suffer an "undue hardship". In order avoid liability for refusing a particular accommodation, the employer must demonstrate what sort of undue hardship it would suffer.

Here, the Defendant pointed to virtually no undue hardship it would suffer by letting Ross use his medical marijuana at home during non-work hours. Instead, it pointed to "red herrings" (which the majority readily adopted as some of its justifications) such as:

• We cannot be forced to allow him to use drugs at work--The Court admits that Ross explicitly stated he was not asking for the right to use medical marijuana at work.
• We cannot be held responsible for him coming to work under the influence--Again, Ross was not asking to be allowed to be under the influence at work. This is exactly the same as if an employee had an Oxycotin or Vicodin prescription and could potentially show up at work under the influence of their medication.
• We cannot condone our employees violating the law--If you let your employees bet on sports such as running football pools, this is essentially the same thing. Under federal law simple possession of a small quantity of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable with a maximum $1,000 fine and/or a year in jail, whereas gambling in California is punishable by a $1,000 fine and/or six months in jail. However, this argument is irrelevant where an employee is only using medical marijuana at home during non-work hours because an employee breaking a law on their own time does not create an undue hardship.

None of these arguments proves that the employer would suffer an undue hardship under these circumstances. Under the FEHA, a claim of hardship generally must be based on either (1) the fact that the accommodation would cost the employer too much to implement, or (2) it would be too inconvenient to implement the accommodation. (See Cal. Gov. 12940(m).)

The majority in this case simply glosses over this whole analysis (which is really the only question they needed to answer here) by conclusively stating "The FEHA does not require employers to accommodate the use of illegal drugs" with virtually no support for that statement. (p. 5)

The majority tries to support this statement by going into a long analysis of cases where it has held that (1) employees can be drug tested under certain circumstances, and (2) employees can be terminated for "abusing" drugs that have no "legitimate medical explanation". Of course, neither of these arguments really has any application to this case, but I guess it sounds good.

Me and the Dissenters Make 3

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Kennard (who was joined by one other justice to make the decision 5-2) gets the analysis right and reaches the right conclusions, in my opinion. Of course, my earlier post about this case makes his same points, but because we both seem to be in the minority it will probably be quite some time before our opinions are adopted.

It will, however, be interesting to see what the rest of the blawgosphere things about this decision.

Tags

California Employment Law | Cases | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination | Drug Testing | Policy : Opinion | Privacy | Reasonable Accommodation

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

This caught my eye because it is not every day that a company publicly releases or discusses their employee handbook. In fact, many handbooks actually state that its pages are the employer's property and must be returned at the end of employment.

The (Bad) Idea

According to Zell, the handbook outlines "our company's new core values" and "reminds us not to take ourselves too seriously, and to have fun." Unfortunately for the Los Angeles Times, legal documents (which are almost always referred to in employment law cases by one or both sides) do serve a legal function.

Although the handbook has the requisite disclaimer stating that it is not a contract, its provisions may be modified at any time, etc. and contains a footnote stating "Of course, Tribune follows...state laws," this will not let them off the hook in future litigation.

In provision 18.1.4 of the new handbook, the Tribune points out that:

It's good judgment not to put in writing what you don't want printed on the front page of a newspaper. Or posted on a website...

The company probably should have taken its own advice and left some of these provisions out of their official employee handbook, but it appears they did not consult an attorney before releasing it, so now they are stuck with it.

Use of Employee Handbooks in Litigation

Employee handbooks are used in litigation to demonstrate an employer's mindset, attitudes or as foreshadowing conduct at issue in a lawsuit.

For example, a handbook might say "you will be terminated immediately if you cannot satisfactorily perform your job due to a medical condition" (from an actual handbook I have seen in a case).

This is extremely good evidence in a disability discrimination or family medical leave case because it can be used as proof that the employer has already stated its intention not to comply with the law.

Examples from the Tribune Handbook

Here are some examples from the recently implemented handbook that point out that likely will cause its outside employment counsel to drive their head repeatedly into the nearest brick wall.

Harassment is not "Harassment"

From section 4, "Harassment Policy (Sexual & Otherwise), of part 3, "Employee Manual" of the handbook:

4.1 Working at Tribune means accepting a creative, quirky,...odd, humorous,...opinionated and sometimes annoying atmosphere.

4.2 Working at Tribune means accepting that sometimes you might hear a word that you...might not use...experience an attitude you don't share...[or] hear a joke that you might not consider funny.

4.3 This should be understood, should not be a surprise and is not considered harassment.

4.4 Harassment means being told that a raise, promotion or other benefit is dependent on you going on a date with your boss or some other similar activity. (emphasis added)

Provision 4.4 actually refers to the relatively uncommon "quid pro quo" sexual harassment, which includes "sleep with me or you are fired"-type conduct.

The vastly more prevalent form of sexual harassment is "hostile work environment" harassment, which occurs when a sexually-charged atmosphere is created, such as frequent, unwelcome sexual propositions towards an employee.

In fact, hostile work environment claims include situations where the conduct is not even directed at the plaintiff, such as other employees' constant viewing of pornography in close proximity to her or constant sexual comments about other employees to or within hearing distance of her.

Provisions 4.1-4.2 could easily be read to encompass a hostile work environment and 4.3's bold statement that in the company's view it is simply "not considered harassment". It does not take much work for a plaintiff's attorney to argue that this provision basically says that the company does not consider hostile work environments to be a form of harassment.

If an employee complains about such conduct and is ignored or retaliated against, provision 4.3 will be very damaging to the employer's case because its state position is that there is nothing wrong with the conduct in the first place.

Managers Love it When You Question Their Authority

8. QUESTION AUTHORITY. ...Question authority and push back if you do not like the answer. You will earn respect, and not get into trouble for asking tough questions.

In theory, this might seem to be a "breath of fresh air" and a great company-wide "open door policy". However, in practice this policy is likely bad for both employees and the company itself.

For the company, it is basically a promise that they will not take any action against an employee for complaining, no matter what it is about or how much they complaint. Every workplace has an employee who just loves to complain about anything and everything constantly. This provision both encourages such behavior and bars management from doing anything about it.

On the other side of the issue, I advise employees every day to be careful with taking such open-door policies too literally. It is commendable for a company to have a well-intentioned policy like this in place, but it has to be (and rarely is) followed by lower-level managers who usually do not like their orders or policies being questioned. In only a rare case will the employee earn any "respect" for complaining.

If an employee takes advantage of a policy like this, they should do so in writing and document both their complaints and their supervisor's reactions. That way, if retaliation does occur then there is a paper trail to prove it.

Alcoholism: Only Disease You Can Get in Trouble for Having¹

7.1 If you use or abuse alcohol or drugs and fail to perform the duties required by your job acceptably, you are likely to be terminated...

Alcoholics and drug addicts are considered to be disabled under California law and an employer terminates them for it at their own risk. In many circumstances, the Americans with Disabilities Act also applies to these situations.

In fact, under California Labor Code § 1025-1028, employers are required to reasonably accommodate these employees by allowing them to attend an alcohol or drug rehabilitation program if they have a substance abuse problem.

These types of disability discrimination claims are often difficult to prove and an uphill battle to establish that the disability (and not its side effects along, e.g. tardiness, poor performance) is the reason for termination.

However, a handbook provision like this could be the piece of evidence that wins the case, since this is singled out as a specific reason for terminating a poor performer. In other words, it does not say "If you have a mental breakdown and fail to perform...," so an argument that the difference is the specific disability itself is the reason gains a great deal of credibility.

"The company intends to actively discriminate..."

2.4 The company intends to actively discriminate based on job performance, ability and attitude.

2.5 Discrimination based on gender, age, race, religion, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, or any other characteristic not related to performance, ability or attitude, protected by federal or state law, or not protected (such as inability to tell a joke, the occasional poor wardrobe choice or bad hair day), is strictly prohibited.

There are a couple of issues with this provision that merit discussion, both of which can turn out bad for the company.

First, these paragraphs essentially promise that they will not terminate or otherwise discriminate based on any reason not related to performance, ability or attitude. Therefore, budget cuts, general "personality conflicts" with co-workers or management, or simply their manager's not liking them are not valid reasons to terminate or take any other action against an employee.

Second, while singling out someone with the "inability to tell a joke, the occasional poor wardrobe choice or bad hair day" as "unprotected" is clearly intended as a light-hearted joke, it could also be applied to that "weird" janitor/mailroom person/manual laborer who works for the company. I have represented some of these employees who are terminated for their social awkwardness which is sometimes a symptom of a disability such as mild autism.

While this may seem far-fetched, Tribune Co. has tens of thousands of employees and such an issue is bound to arise at some point in the next several years.

That's What Employment Law Attorneys Are For

Apparently the handbook was actually written by Randy Michaels, Tribune's CEO for Interactive Broadcasting. He has said he believe that "The more policies you have, the more opportunities there are for someone who is very unhappy to sue." However, with the right disclaimers in place, breaking a promise in an employee handbook itself provides no basis to sue.

Although our firm only practices employee rights law and does not advise employers or draft employee handbooks, this is most certainly the kind of thing that makes management-side employment law attorneys crucial in preventing lawsuits and other problems before they occur.

Mr. Michaels seems all too eager to say he is "amazed and amused at what lawyers get businesspeople to do," suggesting that other companies who pay lawyers to write (as the LA Time piece puts it) "the mind-numbing, lawyer gobbledygook in most corporate manuals" are being swindled or misled. In fact, that "gobbledygook" is often instrumental in successfully defeating many lawsuits by employees.

Once the Tribune faces its first lawsuit where this handbook is used as evidence against them, they will hopefully realize that Mr. Michaels has actually created more legal liabilities than he has prevented.

At that point, I will feel sorry for the attorney who has to defend a company that believes they will "have fewer legal problems with plain English and common sense than with pages and pages of rules". Essentially, that their own gobbledygook is better than any gobbledygook a lawyer could have written for them.

Good luck with that.

1. Courtesy of: Mitch Hedberg

Tags

California Employment Law | Employee Handbooks | Employment Contracts | Policy : Opinion

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

[P]eople have the right to discriminate...in choosing...an employee.... Civil rights legislation of the past thirty years has totally ignored this principle. Many 'do-gooders,' of course, argue from the 'moral high ground' for their version of equal rights, knowing that they can play the sympathies and the guilt of many Americans.

It appears Mr. Paul is not only against protection of women in the face of discrimination, but virtually all protected minorities and classifications, including race, religion, and age.

What else is there for me to say about Mr. Paul's views other than I disagree completely and as someone who thinks of himself as a "do-gooder," they offend me. I would think the majority of independent voters tend to agree with me, but recent polls showing independent support for him seem to tell a different story.

This will likely be my last foray into political commentary for this election cycle. It has been an eye-opening experience and at least solidified who I will not be supporting in the upcoming elections.

Tags

California Employment Law | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination | Gender Discrimination | National Origin Discrimination | News | Policy : Opinion | Race Discrimination

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

The idea that the social do-gooder can legislate a system which forces industry to pay men and women by comparable worth standards boggles the mind...The concept of equal pay for equal work is...an impossible task.... By what right does the government assume the power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to?

Mr. Paul's opinion that only attractive women should work as flight attendants is amusing, but it does bring up some employment law issues, both explicitly and implicitly.

Gender Identity Discrimination

As a general principle, it is not illegal in California to choose an attractive job candidate over a candidate who is equally qualified but unattractive, as long as this is the actual reason for the decision.

However, issues such as the person being unattractive because of a disability or the person doing the hiring would simply rather work with the less-qualified attractive woman than the highly qualified male applicant, discrimination claims become more of an option.

Another issue this brings up is known as "gender identity discrimination". Essentially, this refers to an employer refusing to hire or firing someone for not "acting like" their gender. For example, a woman who is not feminine enough is rejected for employment by Victoria's Secret or a man who acts too effeminate is terminated from his job as an auto mechanic.

This theory of gender discrimination is still fairly rare, but is much more common than it was even five years ago, especially concerning transgendered employees. The crux of the legal argument is that because adverse employment actions are taken against these employees because they are not conforming to the stereotypical behavior and appearance of their gender, these actions are taken because of their gender, thus making it gender discrimination.

There have been a few cases where employees have made arguments similar to Mr. Paul's hypothetical, but usually not successfully. For example, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that female casino employees can be required to wear makeup even when their male counterparts are not.

Equal Pay for Equal Work

The undercurrent of Mr. Paul's quote, however, is its reference to "equal pay for equal work." This refers to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 ("EPA"), which is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act and says that, all other things being equal, women must be paid as much as their male counterparts in a company (and vice-versa).

Under Mr. Paul's view, an employer should be free to pay each employee whatever they wish for whatever reason they wish. While this makes sense when all employees are on equal footing when competing for jobs, it ignores the realities of the United States' (and the rest of the world's) ingrained discriminatory attitudes towards women.

The EPA was passed to curtail employer behavior based on outdated stereotypes of women. For example, paying women less because of an employers' belief that:

• Women belong in the home and should be discouraged from entering the workplace;
• Women will eventually quit once they "find" a husband;
• Women will eventually leave to have babies; or
• Women are inherently less qualified or less intelligent than men.

Study after study has shown that women are still paid less than men for doing the exact same job. The EPA was passed in an attempt to remedy this and since its passage the disparity in pay has substantially decreased.

However, when Mr. Paul wrote his book in 1987 the gap was much larger than it is today and blatant discrimination against women in the workplace was much more prevalent.

Conclusion

Apparently Ron Paul thinks bias against women is a perfectly good reason to make pay-level decisions. While he is entitled to his opinion, I am unable to understand how his supporters are more than 50% female.

At first I thought this was similar to his prior racist and homophobic rants, which are somewhat buried in history and do not get much coverage. However, this book is actually heralded by his supporters, including rave reviews by women.

I guess I just don't get it.

Tags

California Employment Law | Discrimination | Gender Discrimination | Marital Status Discrimination | News | Policy : Opinion | Pregnancy Discrimination

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

Today I happened to stumble across some of Ron Paul's comments in Freedom Under Siege, a book (the link is to a 160 page pdf file of it) he published in 1987. Although I have heard in the past about racist, homophobic, intolerant, etc. comments he has made, I had not heard about some of the things he says about employee rights in this book.

I am neither a proponent of Ron Paul, nor am I an active opponent of his. I believe he has many great ideas, but like most people with a few great radical ideas, he also has a few radical bad ideas. These will be chronicled in a series of posts over the next few days. Originally this was going to be just one post, but the more I read this book, the more material I came up with.

"So-Called Harassment"

The first passage that jumped out at me is on page 17 of the book where he states the following about employees who are sexually harassed by their employers:

Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? ...[H]ow can the harassee escape [any] responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable...pressure and submission is hardly an example of a violation of one's employment rights.

Mr. Paul apparently believes that employers should be free to demand sexual favors from their employees and then terminate them if they are refused. Clearly this viewpoint is offensive to women and is not going to be adopted by anyone other than the far-far-far-right wing of American politics, but it also defies logic from a pure policy standpoint.

Why Don't they Just Quit?

In Ron Paul's view, an employee who is sexually harassed should just walk down the street and get a different job. Apparently the employer's "punishment" is that the employee quits.

However, this ignores the reality that employees cannot just start a new job right away without suffering any damages. What if that employee left a good job to work for this new employer? What if the employee moved to take this job and it is the only company where she can practice in her field (e.g. the only hospital or school in the area)?

"Hardly" a Violation of Employment Rights

Take this hypothetical of a single mother who works hard at her job as a secretary to put food on the table for her children. She has a disabled child who needs frequent medical care and had to wait a full year to get coverage under her employer's health plan. She has received steady raises in her pay to where she finally has enough money coming in to pay her bills and feed her family.

One day, the owner of the company asks her into his office, closes the door behind her and asks her to have sex with him on the couch. She refuses and he says if she is not undressed and on the couch in thirty seconds she is fired.

Current Law

Under current law in both California and the rest of the United States, the employee could simply refuse her employer's advances and sue for lost wages and benefits (until she gets another, comparable position), emotional distress, punitive damages, costs and attorney's fees.

Not only does this serve to compensate an employee who is forced to go through such an ordeal, but it also acts as a deterrent because employers would expect to be sued if this happened.

Ron Paul's View

Apparently Ron Paul believes that in this example the employee has the "right" to quit on the spot and no longer provide services to the employer. However, the employer also has the "right" to demand sex from his employees and terminate them if they do not comply.

The employee is forced to choose between food, shelter and healthcare for her children and being degraded at the hands of her employer. At the instant she makes her decision the "right" decision is far from clear.

This type of scene already plays out far too often in the United States, but imagine if employers had absolutely no liability for taking these sorts of actions.

Conclusion

Sexual harassment laws were passed in large part to deal with the extreme difference in power between employers and their employees.

Employers can make their employees do virtually anything they want within the boundaries of the law, but society has decided that employees should not be forced to choose between being a sex slave and surviving financially or professionally.

Does Ron Paul seriously believe that employees should be forced to make this decision and employers who force them to should not suffer any consequences? If so, do the 10% of people voting for him the primaries agree with him on this?

Tags

California Employment Law | Discrimination | Gender Discrimination | News | Policy : Opinion | Sexual Harassment

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

What is an "Interactive Process"?

What this means is if an employer knows one of their employees is disabled and they suspect that employee might need some sort of accommodation (e.g. ergonomic keyboard, wheelchair ramp, a chair to sit in while working, etc.), they must approach that employee and work with them to determine if such a reasonable accommodation exists.

The employee does not have to ask for an accommodation to be entitled to one, because many employees do not know their rights and that should not effect their entitlements under the law.

Additionally, if an employee requests an accommodation for their disability, the employer must work with the employee to either find a reasonable accommodation or determine that no such accommodation exists.

The employer cannot simply ignore the employee or deny the request because the accommodation requested is not feasible. For example, if an employee requests to telecommute and work from home as an accommodation, but the employer legitimately needs them in the office, then even though the requested accommodation might not be "reasonable," the employer is now under a duty to see if there is some other accommodation both sides can agree upon. If the employer simply says "no" and leaves it at that, then a violation has occurred.

California Takes this One Step Further

In California, if the employer refuses to engage in this "interactive process," the employee can sue based on this violation alone. This was the case in Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California (Cal.App.Dist. 2 11/9/2007) No. B191028.

In Wysinger, the jury determined that (1) the employer failed to engage in the required interactive process, but also that (2) the employer did not fail to accommodate the employee's disability because no such accommodation was available. The employer appealed the decision, arguing that these two verdicts were inconsistent, because they were held liable for not working with the employee to agree on an accommodation that did not even exist.

However, the court upheld the award to the employee of over $2 Million, because the employer's failure to even respond to the employee's accommodation requests is a completely separate question and independent from whether an accommodation actually existed or was denied.

Employees must realize that they have a right to a reasonable accommodation for their disabilities at work and employers have to realize that they have to at least try to explore possible reasonable accommodations with an employee who is disabled.

Tags

California Employment Law | Cases | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination | Reasonable Accommodation

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

In Mokler v. County of Orange, et.al. (Cal.App.Dist.4 11/26/2007), No. G036029, a former Orange County employee sued under several different claims, including sexual harassment of her by a county supervisor. While I agree with the court's decision on most of the issues presented by the case, I do disagree on their sexual harassment analysis and decision.

The Facts of the Case

Without going into too much detail, Ms. Mokler had to interact with Orange County Supervisors "on almost a daily basis" as part of her job duties, including Supervisor Chris Norby. Mokler introduced herself to Norby at a budget hearing in 2003 and he promptly asked her if she was married. When she said no, he called her an "aging nun". Mokler reported the incident to her supervisor, but he did nothing about it and actually told Mokler to "be careful".

Mokler next encountered Norby at a hotel where a political event was being held. Norby took her arm, pressed her body up against his and said "in a flirtatious manner: 'Did you come here to lobby me?'" Mokler responded that she was not there to lobby him and he asked "Why not? These women are lobbying me," gesturing to two women standing next to him. Norby continued to hold her body up against his, looked her up and down, and told her she had "a nice suit and nice legs". Mokler was finally able to push her self away from him and again went to her supervisor who again told her to "be careful" and further suggested she "needed 'to win him over'".

Mokler's final encounter with Norby occurred in his office. When she arrived, he put his arm around her and told her she looked "nice". He walked over to a large map on the wall and asked her where she lived. When she hesitated, he "demanded she provide her exact address." He put his arm around Mokler again and rubbed her breast with his arm until she pushed herself away from him and apparently a male co-worker interrupted them.

The Trial Court's Decision

The jury found in Mokler's favor on her sexual harassment claim against Norby, but awarded no damages to her for the claim. While uncommon, this does occur where an employee suffers no economic damages as a direct result of the harassment and they are unable to prove any emotional distress or other special damages. However, the trial court ultimately "entered judgment on this claim against Norby, but nonetheless declared him the 'prevailing party' and awarded costs in his favor."

In California sexual harassment cases, the "prevailing party" is entitled to attorney's fees and costs, but I am still scratching my head on how Norby had a judgment entered against him and is still considered to have "prevailed".

The only reason for this I can come up with is that there as an offer made under California Code of Civil Procedure 998.  Under that statute, if a party offers to settle for a set amount, the offer is rejected, and then the other party gets less than was originally offered to them, the opposing party can get their costs reimbursed.  However, this is not mentioned anywhere in the opinion and there are several reasons why even this does not make sense as a reason.  But this is not the point of the post, so I will let it go...

The County appealed several of the trial court's rulings, including the finding of sexual harassment by Norby for creating a "hostile work environment".

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that no hostile work environment was created by Norby. The court ruled that Norby's conduct was not "severe or pervasive" enough to justify the trial court's finding that sexual harassment occurred.

It is extremely rare to find a case where both the jury and the trial court found that sexual harassment occurred and the appellate court reverses that decision. In almost all cases that are reversed like this, it is usually very clear that sexual harassment did not occur and the jury got it wrong. I would submit to you that in this case the jury was right and the appellate court was in error.

The appellate court based its decision on a number of factors, including their findings that the incidents "involved no physical threats," "the touching...was brief and did not constitute an extreme act of harassment," and the demand for her address was "brazen," but "[did not create]...a hostile work environment."

To me, if a manager rubs a subordinate's breast, this does constitute "an extreme act of harassment". This is sexual assault, plain and simple, which is punishable as a crime in California! How this conduct could ever not qualify as "severe" or "extreme" is beyond me. Further,holding her body up against his and telling her she has nice legs also borders on extreme.

The court suggests that no "physical threats" occurred. However, when a supervisor grabs an employee's breast after demanding to know where she lives and getting no response, to me this certainly does qualify as a "physical threat".

Additionally, while it is unclear whether Mokler brought her sexual harassment claim against just Norby or against Orange County as well, I believe the county should have liability here. When Mokler complained to her supervisor about Norby's conduct, he simply told her to "be careful" and that she "needed to win him over." I do not know whether these remarks were intended to suggest that she go along with Norby's behavior or if this was a veiled threat against her for complaining, but the way the court's opinion reads it seems the county did absolutely nothing to stop Norby's conduct and possibly tried to stop her from bringing it up.

This is simply one man's opinion, but I call them like I see them and to me this case was decided incorrectly by the appellate court. I do not know if Mokler plans to file an appeal, but I would be very interested to see what the California Supreme Court would decide after reviewing the case.

Tags

California Employment Law | Cases | Discrimination | Gender Discrimination | Harassment | Hostile Work Environment | Policy : Opinion | Sexual Harassment

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

Currently, under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act such an "English-only" policy is considered national origin discrimination. There is a "business necessity" exception to this rule where speaking English is necessary to do the job. For example, a nurse who assists with surgeries must be able to speak English to communicate with the medical staff.

This amendment is unlikely to pass and is likely just pre-election posturing to bring the debate over immigration into the forefront of the electorate's consciousness.

However, most employees in California would not be affected by such a change, because California's Fair Employment and Housing Act also prevents English-only policies and is far more protective than Title VII in virtually all respects.

Tags

California Employment Law | Discrimination | Hostile Work Environment | National Origin Discrimination | Policy : Legislation | Race Discrimination

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

In this case, the employee was refused employment because his pre-employment drug test came back positive for marijuana. The employee had been using medical marijuana at the direction of his physician to deal with lower back strain and muscle spasms.

Case Background

Under California's Compassionate Use Act, patients cannot be prosecuted under state law for using or possessing medical marijuana.

However, while federal authorities do not usually pursue prosecution against those who simply use marijuana and do not sell it, the federal Controlled Substances Act still makes possession of marijuana illegal.

California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") makes it illegal for an employer to terminate an employee as a result of their disability or to fail to "reasonably accommodate" their disability.

The collision of these three laws is messy and the answer as to which should prevail is very unclear.

Criminal Law Meets Employment Law

The Supreme Court now has to interpret the FEHA while considering the two drug laws as a backdrop.

To simplify the discrimination issues in terms of a "normal" disability discrimination case, just substitute the word "Vicodin" for "marijuana". Generally, an employer could not terminate an employee for using Vicodin in connection with their disability.

Under these facts, the employee would have a fairly sound disability discrimination case under California law. However, the fact that marijuana use or possession is illegal under federal law complicates things considerably.

Employment Law Meets Criminal Law

For the Court to hold in Ross' favor, they would essentially prohibit employers from terminating employees for engaging in what is essentially criminal conduct.

The FEHA does not really address whether employers must allow employees to engage in illegal conduct outside of work as part of a "reasonable accommodation" for a disability.

Basically, the law is silent on this issue, but this analysis could turn on the word "reasonable". Is allowing an employee to break the law at home on their own time reasonable?

I do not pretend to know the answer to that question.

My Opinion

If I was deciding this case, I would say that the question of legality or illegality on the part of the employee does not enter into the analysis for the purposes of FEHA liability. Illegality should only be considered if it affects the employer.

It is important to note that Ross only used the marijuana at home and did not bring it to or use it at work. As long as the employee does not use the medical marijuana during work hours, I think it is no concern of the employer. I bring this caveat up because if they were to use at work, the employer would essentially be helping the employee commit a crime if they provide a place or time to use it.

I also think that employers would not have to allow the employee to work if they are under the influence at work and doing tasks that would make them dangerous to themselves or others.

Many of the opponents to Ross point to this as a major issue. How can an employer know if the employee has recently used and is safe to have at work? However, I think this is a red herring, because this would also be a problem where an employee has to use Vicodin, which arguably can impair function much more than marijuana does.

The Court's Opinion

Of course, my opinion does not matter much. What really matters here is what the California Supreme Court thinks.

Based on the transcripts from the arguments yesterday, it roughly seems to be a 3-3 tie among the justices present in deciding the case.

In a dramatic twist, Justice Carol Corrigan was out with the flu and could not attend oral arguments. She will be watching a videotape of the arguments to help her decide, but we have no way of guessing what she thinks of the case.

The Court has 90 days to issue a ruling. It should be very interesting reading.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments below...

Tags

California Employment Law | Cases | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination | Drug Testing | Policy : Opinion | Privacy | Reasonable Accommodation | Wrongful Termination

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

SB 836

Senate Bill 836 was heralded nationwide as the first law prohibiting employer discrimination against employees based on their "family status".

For example, discrimination against employees who are single parents who have to take their child to the doctor would be prohibited. Also, if the child is sick at home and has nobody else to care for them, the employee could actually take protected, unpaid leave to do so.

I think this bill was a step in the right direction, but I do have to agree that its reach was far to broad to avoid the Governor's veto stamp. If certain limits can be added to the measure to keep its use reasonable, I believe the legislature can pass a satisfactory bill in the near future.

Tags

California Employment Law | Discrimination | Family Medical Leave | Family Status Discrimination | Medical Leave Discrimination | News | Policy : Legislation

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 392 into law last month and it became effective immediately. The Bill has two main components:

1. An employer of more than 25 people must provide an employee with up to 10 days of unpaid leave when their spouse is on leave from military duty; and
2. The employer is prohibited from retaliating against a qualified employee for requesting or taking this leave.

To me, one of the most surprising aspects of this law is that the employer must grant the leave, regardless of the circumstances-no exceptions. This is uncommon in employment law where there are usually at least some exceptions where the employer can deny the leave.

Under the Family Medical Leave Act, for example, non-emergency medical leave requests the employer can make the employee wait to take the leave if they are a "key employee" or if it is a very busy time of the year for the employer. Other leave laws allow similar exceptions where it will cause a "hardship" on the employer.

However, under this new California leave law, it looks like employers have no right to deny the leave request, no matter how essential it is that the employee be at work. This does make sense, of course, because the employee's spouse will only be off of leave during a set period of time.

This is a very interesting development in the law and the fact that it went into effect immediately makes me wonder how many spouses and military personnel know about it. If you know someone who has a spouse in the military, be sure to remind them of this opportunity to take time off from work to be with their spouse!

Tags

California Employment Law | Discrimination | Family Medical Leave | Marital Status Discrimination | Medical Leave Discrimination | Military Discrimination | News | Policy : Legislation | Retaliation

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

This might bring to mind examples where uneducated, unskilled women are denied employment and/or harassed by uneducated men who think of them as sex objects, such as in the movie North Country.

However, as discussed on Susan Cartier Liebel's blog, this subject comes up in all areas of employment, including lawyers. Susan discusses the recent Wall Street Journal blog post: "When You Land The Job Interview, Should The Ring Come Off?", which discusses whether lawyers should ditch their wedding ring for job interviews.

At first glance, some might think of this as paranoia, but an anonymous legal recruiter actually explains how the partners at law firms specifically tell him they prefer male over female recruits because they think these women will eventually get pregnant and either take time off or leave to start a family.

Sometimes employers are ignorant of the law and actually come right out and ask applicants about their family life for this very purpose. They ask things such as whether they plan to have children, what their husband thinks of them working outside the home and other questions that are not only illegal, but often extremely offensive.

While I would take this as a "red flag" that this is someone you might not want to work for, here is an article about how to deal with such questions "tactfully".

In California, it is illegal to hire a man over a married (or unmarried) woman for any of these or similar reasons. Marital status discrimination is not hard to prove when an employer makes it a habit of doing this. All you have to do is look at the list of who is hired and who is not when new employees are hired.

Tags

California Employment Law | Discrimination | Family Medical Leave | Family Status Discrimination | Gender Discrimination | Marital Status Discrimination | Medical Leave Discrimination | Pregnancy Discrimination

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ("USERRA") requires employers to provide employees with up to five years of leave to serve in the military.

When an employee returns from military service, their employer must return them to their old position at the same rate of pay without any loss of seniority or benefits based on seniority, such as raises and vacation pay.

These protections still apply even if the employee has been replaced. If the employee's position no longer exists, the employer usually must give them an equivalent position.

Additionally, an employee who returns from military leave cannot be terminated without cause for 180 days following their return. This is by far the strongest job protection provided by any federal or state employment law.

Of course, the real reason for this law is to tell recruits that their jobs will be protected if they need to take a military leave. However, if the Democratic Congress succeeds in pulling our troops out of Iraq sometime in the near future, the real effect of these protections will come into play as thousands of troops reenter the workforce.

As these employees begin returning to work and employers have to deal with accommodating them, some will simply ignore the law and hope the employee does not sue them. If you know someone who is returning from military duty, make sure they know their rights.

Tags

California Employment Law | Discrimination | Military Discrimination | Wrongful Termination

Related Posts

• California Wrongful Termination Law
• About Our California Employee Rights Firm
• Contingency Fee Employment Law Cases
• Our Firm