George Washington once said:

Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all.

Letter of Instructions to the Captains of the Virginia Regiments [July 29, 1759]. The advocates of consumer rights, viewing the resources of defense firms and corporate defendants, can relate to the trepidation felt by the out-numbered and out-gunned Continental Army. Because of that disparity in resources, Consumer Attorneys of California ("CAOC") consolidates the voices of consumer attorneys throughout the state to (1) preserve and protect the constitutional right to trial by jury for all consumers, (2) champion the cause of those who deserve redress for injury to person or property, (3) encourage and promote changes to California law by legislative, initiative or court action, (4) oppose injustice in existing or contemplated legislation, (5) correct harsh, unjust and oppressive legislation or judicial decisions, (6) advance the common law and promote the public good through the civil justice system and concerted efforts to secure safe products, a safe workplace, a clean environment, and quality health care, (7) uphold the honor, integrity and dignity of the legal profession by encouraging mutual support and cooperation among members, (8) promote the highest standards of professional conduct, and (9) inspire excellence in advocacy. This post is a multi-blog effort to inform consumer attorneys about CAOC's value and encourage participation in CAOC through membership.

CAOC works tirelessly to protect or advance those causes of import to consumers and their attorneys in California. Often those efforts, though valuable, receive little fanfare. For example, CAOC recently sponsored SB 510, which affects the re-sale of what are known as "structured settlements," in which victims receive financial compensation over a period of time for medical expenses and basic living needs, as determined by a jury. Before SB 510 was signed by the Governor, Courts expressed frustration at their inability to prevent the sale of structured settlements on terms that might ultimately lead to long-term financial hardship for the victim. Now, SB 510 gives judges the information they need to make a reasoned decision about the propriety of a structured settlement sale.

Measures like CAOC-sponsored SB 510 help protect the most vulnerable members of our society and ask for nothing in return. They exemplify the spirit of CAOC. However, CAOC is only as effective in its mission as its membership allows it to be. When consumer attorneys join the ranks of CAOC, its voice gains in power and clarity. But if consumer advocates sit on the sidelines, hoping to benefit from the work of others, CAOC is stretched thin, and we are all at risk as a result.

Now, consumer advocate bloggers from across the state are combining their voices to call upon each and every lawyer and firm that regularly represents plaintiffs to join CAOC, thereby strengthening the consumer's first line of defense. The blogs participating in this unified call to action are:

• The Complex Litigator (H. Scott Leviant)
• The UCL Practitioner (Kimberly Kralowec)
• Bailey Class Action Daily (Matt Bailey)
• California Employee Rights Blog (James J. Peters)
• An Appeal to Reason (Donna Bader)
• California Personal Injury and Insurance Blog (Jonathan G. Stein)
• California Debt Blog (Jonathan G. Stein)
• TrialLawyerTips.com (Mitch Jackson and Lisa Wilson)
• California Injury Blog (John Bisnar)
• San Diego Injury Lawyer Blog (Ross A. Jurewitz)
• San Diego Car Accident Lawyer Blog (Ross Jurewitz
• San Diego Injury Accident Lawyer Blog (Ross A. Jurewitz)
• California Nursing Home Abuse Lawyer Blog (Walton Law Firm LLP)
• San Diego Injury Law Blog (Walton Law Firm LLP)
• California Personal Injury Law Blog (Norman Gregory Fernandez)
• Biker Lawyer Blog (Norman Gregory Fernandez)
• California Credit Law (Mark F. Anderson, Carol Brewer & Andy Ogilvie)
• Lemon Law Blog (Mark F. Anderson, Carol Brewer & Andy Ogilvie)

Show your support of consumers' rights by joining and supporting CAOC. Together we can make an impact that we cannot make alone.

The Los Angeles Times recently reported on a new bill headed to Governor Schwarzenegger for possible signature (though I believe it is likely to be vetoed) generally prohibiting California employers from requiring applicants to allow them to examine their credit report as part of the application process.

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.

In most layoff situations, especially these days, the layoff is legitimate and a necessary evil in cutting costs.  However, just because an employee has not been wrongfully terminated in a layoff does not mean they have no California employment law rights.  One common example is receiving all unpaid vacation pay.

Vacation Pay

Under California employment laws, once employees have accrued vacation time, they must either be allowed to use it to take time off or have it paid out at termination.  This is commonly referred to as California's "no use-it-or-lose-it" rule.

Employees should also be aware that even if an employer calls it "Paid Time Off (PTO)" or a "personal day" instead of "vacation" it most likely must still be paid out.  Under California law, vacation pay is defined as any hours an employer provides an employee to take off for any reason.

One example of something which might not qualify as vacation pay is sick pay, which most employers only allow use of when an employee is sick.  Otherwise, most forms of PTO is the same thing as vacation pay.

Payment Must Be Made on Exact Termination Date

Whether you are owed accrued vacation pay, hourly wages, salary, commissions, or some other form of wages, an employer who terminates an employee MUST pay ALL money out on the last day of employment-no exceptions.

If this is not done, then an employee is entitled to "waiting time" penalties equal to one day of wages for each day the wages remain unpaid, including weekends and holidays, up to a maximum of thirty days.  These issues come into play even where the employer does not dispute that the employee is owed money.  For example, if the employer puts the check in the mail or does not pay all of the wages until the next payday, the employee is automatically entitled to penalties from their last day until they actually receive the check.

For example, if your employer does not pay out all of your vacation pay and you make $60,000 per year, after thirty days you would be entitled to approximately $7,000 in penalties even if the vacation is eventually paid out to you.

These are tough times for many laid-off employees.  They should make sure they receive all of the wages they are owed, since every dollar counts in making it through their unemployment.

This is our second post in a series on employees' rights when they get laid-off from work.  In our last post, I pointed out that even though an employee may have been "laid-off" with several other employees, that does not necessarily mean they were not wrongfully terminated in being chosen for layoff.  This post deals with the situation where a large group may be "singled out" for wrongful termination.

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.

It seems like every day another company announces mass layoffs in the United States.  While we are fielding more calls from potential clients than usual, they have not increased quite as much as overall unemployment.

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.

Over the past couple of months I have been dealing with a case against a major national bank on behalf of one of its former employees.  The case involves his "discretionary" annual bonus, which most employers would say is just that-discretionary.  However, the term discretionary is misleading because except in some very limited circumstances a party to a contract does not have absolute discretion.

This is because all contracts in California have an "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing".  This is one of the least sexy concepts in contract or employment law, so I will summarize it quickly.  This doctrine acts as a check on parties in contracts where one side has the right to exercise broad discretion that effects the other party's rights.  The law says that in such a case when the party exercises their discretion it generally must be done "fairly".

This is especially important in our case because on Wall Street investment bankers and other professionals are usually paid a (relatively) small salary and then an extremely large annual bonus at the end of the year.  In our case, the employee was used to making over $750,000 and suddenly his employer decided at the end of last year to give him a bonus of less than $50,000 for 2007 with no warning whatsoever and despite the fact that he was performing better than his peers.

It turns out that the employer was planning to lay him off in a few weeks, so they decided to give his usual bonus to his co-workers.  This is the classic case where the implied covenant comes up in California employment law cases.  If an employee performs acceptable work during the year with the expectation that he would receive a bonus similar to his peers and what he received in prior years, the employer does not exercise discretion in "good faith" by paying him hundreds of thousands of dollars less than they do to similar employees.

This might be an extreme case for most employees, but the same concepts can be applied to any bonus and even Christmas bonuses in certain circumstances.

This past Friday I spoke with a potential client who was recently terminated by his employer.  I concluded that he did not have a case worth pursuing and any claims he did have were likely not worth pursuing if it meant giving up the severance his employer had already offered to him.

At the end of the consultation he said he was surprised at my response because he had spoken to another employee-rights firm in Southern California where they told him that he had a "great" case and wanted to pursue it for him.  While I know I may not always be right about the merits of a case, in this situation I was very confident in telling him that based on what he was telling me his case was definitely not "great" and likely non-existent.

I was suspicious about the situation, so I asked him about the other attorney he had seen and what sort of fee arrangement he was offered.  The firm had actually offered to represent him in exchange for (1) a large retainer fee (likely around $1-2,000) AND (2) an hourly fee agreement.  Of all the employee-rights attorneys I know in the California, this is the first firm I have seen that charges hourly fees.  Most other firms work on a contingency fee where the client pays nothing unless they recover damages on the client's behalf.

This area of the law is unique in that almost all of our clients are people who recently became unemployed and wonder if they will be able to pay their mortgage and keep their house, much less substantial attorney's fees.  We work almost entirely on contingency, although we do represent a few hourly clients, but usually just to review employment, severance and non-compete agreements.

Because attorneys in California generally charge $350-500 per hour, contingency fees are usually the only way a client can pursue these types of claims.  Fees add up very quickly and in an hourly billing arrangement clients can end up owing their attorney tens-of-thousands of dollars even if they lose.  This also creates a conflict of interest where it is actually in the attorney's best interest financially to drag a case out, perform unnecessary work and bill more hours.  Debates over these issues are raging in the legal community, such as in the article The Billable Hour Must Die published last year in the American Bar Association Journal.

The bottom line is that if you speak to an employee-rights attorney and they offer to take your case either (1) on an hourly basis or (2) on a contingency fee but also with a large up-front retainer fee, you should be wary.  At the very least you should get a second opinion from another firm and ask how they would charge to represent you.  Our firm, as well as others in California offer free consultations that can be done over the phone.

Some employees (and some employee-rights attorneys) believe that if they are wrongfully terminated and able to get a new job just days later, they will only be able to recover a few thousand dollars and it would not be "worth it" to pursue a claim, especially if they have to pay an attorney to get it. However, in California victims of employee rights violations can recover their own attorney's fees in most cases, which alone could make pursuing a claim worth the effort for both the client and the lawyer.

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.

This post is part of our ongoing series dealing with "family status" discrimination.  Family status claims implicate several employment laws, depending on the facts of a given case.  For example, the federal Equal Pay Act ("EPA") and also California law mandate "equal pay" between men and women.

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.

This is our third post in our series on "family status" discrimination. The last post dealt with examples of "moral stereotyping" where an employer's belief on what women should do motivates their discrimination. This post deals with what I call "assumption" stereotyping, which deals with instances where an employer is motivated by their beliefs about what women will do, given their family status.

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".

This is my second post in our multi-part series on "family status" discrimination, which is becoming more and more common under both federal and state law.

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.

One employment law claim that has been quickly becoming more popular these days is "family status discrimination". That is, discriminating against someone based on their familial obligations or simply because they have a family in the first place.

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.

It is fairly common for sweeping employment law legislation to be introduced in the California legislature and I usually do not pay much attention to these bills because they usually do not become law.

One of two things almost always happens: (1) the republicans introduce a pro-employer bill that will never pass the democratically-controlled legislature or (2) the democrats introduce a pro-employee bill that passes but is then vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

However, I gave an interview to a reporter this past week for law360.com to discuss some recently-introduced legislation aimed at severely limiting employees' rights to meal periods in California that led me to some interesting discoveries.

In researching one of the bills, SB 1192, which was introduced by State Senator Bob Margett on February 12, 2008, I was reminded why I try to ignore these bills, the people who introduce them and the political process in general.

The Details of SB 1192

SB 1192 proposes the following changes to existing law:

SOL Change

The bill changes the statute of limitations for recovering penalties for missed meal periods from four years (under Murphy v. Kenneth Cole) to one year. This would severely limit employees' right to recovery, which means an employer would have a lot less to lose by breaking the law.

The penalty is one hour of pay for each break not provided, but presumably an employer makes much more profit from one hour of an employee's work than they pay the employee. Therefore, employers might be willing to risk having to pay more later for that work.

For example, if an employee brings a lawsuit to recover one year of missed meal periods, the employer might have to pay another $12 of pay to an employee for each day worked that year, because they made $30 of profit from that hour of work by the employee.

Violation of California meal period laws is widespread, but only a small minority of employees do anything about it, which makes the small risk of paying one year of penalties worthwhile to an employer.

However, if faced with four years of penalties, an employer might think twice about taking the risk.

Anti-Employee Definition of "Provide"

SB 1192 modifies the law to state that an employer is only required to make a rest period available "without interfering with its use".

Under this interpretation, employers will argue that if an employee signs a document when they begin employment saying "you are provided with a lunch break" then their obligation is met.

Unless the employer actively prevents the employee from taking the break, such as instructing them not to take a lunch break they are in the clear. This would put the onus on employees who are too busy to take a lunch break to complain about it to their employer in order to get any relief.

Often employers are well aware that the requirements they place on employees mean that taking a lunch break is out of the question. However, they also know that employees are hesitant to complain about the situation because they do not want to seem like a "slacker" or "lazy", so they work through their lunch breaks.

Time for Taking Break Expanded

This bill changes the law to state that lunch breaks may be given "commencing at any time before the start of the sixth hour of work".

This would seem to allow employers to mandate that employees take their lunch breaks immediately upon starting work. Essentially employers would be able to get away with telling their employees to come to work 1/2 later than normal and count that as their meal period.

This change completely negates the rationale behind requiring employers to provide meal breaks in the first place.

Purpose of SB 1192 Misrepresented to the Public

After introducing the legislation, Senator Margett issued a press release entitled "Senator Margett Calls for Flexibility In Meal Periods For All California Employees and Employers".

The release only mentions the last change discussed above regarding the timing of meal periods and totally misrepresents its effect. He tries to pass this off as a bill that has the sole purpose of allowing employees to take their meal period during their 5th hour of work instead of before the 5th hour, which current law requires in most situations.

The Senator repeatedly tries to make it sound like the only reason he introduced SB 1192 is that "too many employees must take their lunch breaks at unreasonable hours". In fact, as I outlined above, this bill has the opposite effect, allowing employers to require that breaks be taken at unreasonable hours.

Senator Margett has essentially told the public he introduced a bill that expands employees' rights when it really destroys the rights they have under current law.

Ok, so this topic has been blogged to death by not only me, but the blawgosphere as a whole. However, I just received this update to the story.

Sam Zell, the head of Tribune Co., met with his employees/journalists last week at the Orlando Sentinel, one of the newspapers covered by his idiotic/inspiring (depending on which side you are on in the debate) new employee handbook.

One employee asked Mr. Zell about the direction the newspaper was heading and asked some follow up questions when she felt like he did not answer her question directly. At the end of the exchange, Mr. Zell simply said: "F*ck you" to the employee and left it at that. Unfortunately for Mr. Zell, a video of the incident quickly made its way onto YouTube.

I would direct Mr. Zell to the following paragraph in the handbook he so proudly introduced just last month:

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.

Apparently Mr. Zell isn't very concerned about practicing what he preaches. When "feel good" handbook policies like this are not followed by management, a culture of cynicism and hypocrisy emerges in most companies.

This is probably even more true in the case where the person who created the policy and widely publicized its merits, violates its own terms just a few weeks later just as publicly.

Mr. Zell has stated publicly that he tried to contact this employee twice and not been able to get in touch with her. Also, she has refused to comment about the incident to the media.

Sounds to me like she, and likely other Tribune Co. employees, have learned their lesson about talking out of turn and not to "question authority".

Apparently there is a new game show out called "Moment of Truth" that gives contestants a lie detector test before the show and then the host asks them the same questions on the air. If the contestant's answer on the air is different from the results of the polygraph, they lose (up to $500,000).

Questions include topics such as whether the contestant has cheated on their spouse, wishes to cheat on their spouse, has various addictions and other very personal areas.

I have no idea who would volunteer to go on this show, especially after knowing the questions in advance. If you know that you could be about to reveal on national television that you cheated on your spouse, why would you go through with it?

Employment Law Issues

I want to clarify that I myself have never actually seen the show, because the ads alone made me cringe. However, an article yesterday on CNNMoney.com questioned the employment law implications for those who go on the show and may be disciplined at work for what is revealed.

Past questions have included whether a personal trainer ever touches female clients more than necessary. He answered "no," but apparently the lie detector revealed that the true answer was "yes". On the same episode, a contestant admitted to looking through their co-workers' desks.

CNN Got Bad Legal Advice

Unfortunately for the author of the CNN article, the attorneys he spoke to gave extremely bad legal advice when asked whether employers could legally discipline these employees based on the show.

The responses from the lawyers included that the information would be "fair game" for discipline and that "It would be neither illegal nor unfair" to do so.

However, these answers are just plain wrong. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act (29 USC 2001-2009) specifically makes it illegal to:

discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take such action against...any employee or prospective employee on the basis of the results of any lie detector test."

There is no requirement that the employer itself administer the test and any employer who violates this law is liable to the employee for lost wages, benefits, costs, attorney's fees, and a $10,000 civil penalty.

It Could Happen

It is not unprecedented for an employee to be terminated from a job for what they say or do on a TV show. For example, on the second season of The Apprentice, one of the candidates was terminated (from her "real life" job, not by Trump) for describing some elderly women as "two old Jewish ladies".

If an employee is "caught" in a lie on Moment of Truth and the employer terminates the employee for it, then it would be a clear violation of the prohibition of adverse action "on the basis of the results of any lie detector test".

Should it be legal to terminate an employee for essentially admitting on national TV that he likes to touch his female clients a little too much? Probably.

Is it legal? No.

A Reuters story this morning deals with what is both one of the most liberal paid leave policies I have ever seen and also one of the most blatantly discriminatory.

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).

A timely study by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) that was released on Tuesday finds that the vast majority of corporations have some sort of formal anti-discrimination policy.

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.

Well, the California Supreme Court finally released its opinion in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., S138130, today and I have to say I am disappointed with the opinion, although I think the dissenting opinion was completely on the mark.

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.

Well, my post about the Los Angeles Times article on their new employee handbook seems to have set off (or at least contributed to) a firestorm throughout the web. Some of the reaction seems off-the-mark, though.

Comments: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

The overwhelming majority of mail I received is in agreement with my comments on the handbook, but I also received the most hate mail for any post I have made in the past year. For example:

I’d like to see the legal system so jammed with lawsuits and uncollectible (sic) judgments that it fails altogether. Maybe then we could get out from under the thumb of the scum sucking lawyer filth who rule our lives. I support the kind of tort reform that would bankrupt 95% or more of attorneys.

However, I did actually receive some civil and thoughtful disagreement, most of which can be summed up by an anonymous comment that reads:

[T]hat "gobbledygook" that can be read and understood by 99% of the population is better than "gobbledygook" that is incomprehensible to 80% of the population. A legal system that is incomprehensible to the vast majority of those to whom it is supposed to apply is an incredibly bad system.

I agree with the second sentence of this comment, but to me the first sentence refers to a non-existent problem with employee handbooks. Generally these handbooks contain little (if any) legalese at all, because that would simply defeat their purpose.¹

Good Handbooks Have NO Gobbledygook

A post by Andrew Mitton at his new blog Legal Frontier that discusses the following provision as an example:

5.1 You may want to think twice before you enter into an intimate relationship with a co-worker. When you start, it might seem like a good idea. It's when you stop, or the wrong people find out (and they will) that you could discover that perhaps it wasn't.

While I did not originally comment on this provision, Daniel Schwartz at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog (an employment law defense attorney) has expressed concern over this provision. Mr. Mitton, on the other hand, praises the Tribune's provision for not having "wherefores, the herebys, and the all-encompassing list" of rules against behavior.

However, under the Tribune's provision, the company is refusing to take the position on the issue and the policy has no "teeth". If they want to terminate an employee for violating it, all the company can say is "we told him he should 'think twice'", when they should have made it a rule.

You might wonder to yourself "Ok, fancy lawyer guy, how would YOU have written it?" Alright, I will give it a shot:

5.1 The company discourages intimate relationships between co-workers and prohibits such relationships between supervisors and subordinates.

This is a clear statement of policy that the company can point to when an employee refuses to follow the rules and must be terminated. It contains no legalese and, in my opinion, CAN be understood by 99% of the population.

The Tribune's provision also does not prohibit relationships between supervisors and their subordinates, which are NEVER a good idea to allow. When the relationship sours, it can lead to sexual harassment suits and even if it does not go bad, employee morale can plummet when they think the subordinate is getting favorable treatment from the supervisor.

Of course, it is possible that the Tribune does not wish to prohibit relationships between supervisors and subordinates. It is also possible that instead of discouraging co-workers from having intimate relationships with each other, they simply want to make a public service announcement suggesting they "think twice". If so, then I suppose this provision accomplishes its goals.

The Reality of Typical Employee Handbooks

The public might be surprised to know that even most lawyers are opposed to legalese and overly complicated language (myself included). In fact, most law students today are taught not to write in legalese and to use plain English. Many jurisdictions (including the federal courts) are completely rewriting their rules to remove legalese and make them more clear for laypeople.

I have probably read close to 1,000 employee handbooks in my career and I do not recall ever seeing one written in legalese using "wherefore's" or "hereby's". In fact, using legalese in an employee handbook may even be as bad an idea as the Tribune's approach.

The main purpose of handbooks is to put employees on notice of what is expected of them. In litigation, the employer would have a tough time justifying termination of an employee for violation of a handbook provision so complicated the employee could not have been expected to understand it.

While I have seen many handbooks that are poorly written and difficult to understand, this is almost always because the employer did not consult a lawyer about it not because they did.

An article in Thursday's Los Angeles Times discusses their own parent company, Tribune Co.'s new employee handbook that was introduced by their CEO, Sam Zell, via a recent e-mail to employees.

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.

In this third and final installment in our series on Ron Paul's comments about employee rights in his book Freedom Under Siege, we examine his views on civil rights legislation in general, which can be found in several sections of his book, but is best summed up with the following quote found on page 39:

[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.

This is the second in our series of posts based on Presidential Candidate Ron Paul's musings on employee rights in his book Freedom Under Siege. This installment's "Paulism" can be found on page 17 of the book:

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.

I have tried to tune out most of the political primary hysteria because I (1) made up my mind about who I would be supporting in the election long ago and (2) I live in California, so my opinion is not really that important at this stage.

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?

In the United States, employers must actively engage in an "interactive process" with disabled employees to try and find a "reasonable accommodation" for their disability, even if no such accommodation actually exists.

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.

Let me first say that I rarely disagree with decisions by California state or federal appellate courts (at least those I am not personally involved in and therefore biased towards). However, I occasionally come across a case where I just think the court got it wrong.

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.

The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient's state. The content of this website contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. Peters Law Group expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this website. Any information sent to Peters Law Group by internet e-mail or through the website is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis. Transmission of information from this website does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Peters Law Group, nor is it intended to do so. The transmission of the website, in part or in whole, and/or any communication with Peters Law Group via internet e-mail or through this site does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between Peters Law Group and the recipients of such communications. Some links within the website may lead to other web-sites, including those operated and maintained by third parties. Peters Law Group includes these links solely as a convenience to you, and the presence of such a link does not imply a responsibility for the linked site or an endorsement of the linked site, its operator, or its contents. This website and its contents are provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Furthermore, Peters Law Group does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this website in a state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Reproduction, distribution, republication, and/or retransmission of material contained within the Peters Law Group Website is prohibited unless the prior written permission of Peters Law Group has been obtained.

According to an article in today's Los Angeles Times, Congressional Republicans are pushing to amend federal anti-discrimination laws to do away with the provision that prohibits employers from requiring employees to only speak English at work.

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 effected 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.

Sometimes employees use their employer's e-mail address or computer to contact us. This is understandable, especially for long-term employees who spend most of their waking time at work or using a company-issued computer at home.

The problem is that using an employer's computer or e-mail address to communicate with your attorney might mean these communications are not confidential and may have to be divulged in future litigation.

The Sacred "Attorney-Client Privilege"

The "attorney-client privilege" is sacred in our legal system. This rule of evidence assures that anything you say to your attorney is confidential and nobody can make you or your attorney disclose what was discussed.

There are, of course, narrow exceptions to this rule that communications between an attorney and their client are privileged. The major exception is that any communications also involving a third party are not.

For example, if you and your attorney have a conversation about your case in a crowded elevator and someone overhears it, the conversation is not privileged.

This is because in a crowded elevator you have no reasonable "expectation of privacy", which is a requirement for the attorney-client privilege to apply. If the conversation is not "private", it is not "privileged.

The Problem

Most of our clients come to us after they have been terminated by their employer, so these issues do not arise, but occasionally an employee is savvy enough to come to us when things start to go wrong at work (which is always a good idea, by the way).

The problem is that if you use a company computer or e-mail address to communicate with your attorney, you could accidentally destroy the attorney-client privilege, much like if you had the same conversation in a crowded elevator.

The reason for this is that most employers have agreements they make their employees sign when they are hired giving their employer permission to monitor their e-mail and other activities on corporate computers.

The theory goes that if you know someone might be monitoring your e-mail, then the e-mail is not private and therefore not privileged. However, the main question here is whether the employee "knows" they might be monitored when they send the e-mail.

The Law

California Evidence Code 917(b) states that "electronic communications" do not lose their privilege "sole[ly]" because they are electronic in nature and third parties (e.g. Yahoo, Google) involved in their transmission "may" be able to access them. However, the privilege still might be lost if the e-mails in question are not considered "private".

I am unaware of any California case that deals with this issue directly (please let me know if you are). However, the case of In re: Asia Global Crossing, Ltd, et. al, a New York federal case, is one of the leading opinions on the subject. It also happens to mention Evidence Code 917(b), which was modeled after an identical New York Statute.

The Court in Asia Global Crossing established a number of factors to examine in cases such as these, many of which subsequent courts have used to analyze similar cases. These primarily include whether the company warns its employees that their e-mail or computer use may be monitored and whether the company actually does monitor its employees' use.

Every Situation is Different

Analyses in these situations are extremely fact-intensive. For example, employees are often told by their employers to sign a stack of documents upon hiring and there might be a one-sentence warning buried in the employee handbook stating that e-mail might be monitored.

If there are no further notices to an employee that their employer may monitor them and ten years later that employee sends their attorney an e-mail on their company computer, it is quite possible that the employee has a legitimate expectation of privacy.

However, if an employer regularly reminds its employees that e-mail traffic is monitored, such as a warning that appears every time an employee signs into their computer, it is possible that no legitimate expectation of privacy exists.

Conclusion

We have a bold warning against communicating with us using corporate e-mail or hardware on our "Ask Us a Question" page, but sometimes clients come to us from other sources or simply do not read the warning before submitting their question.

The best way to avoid all of the headache involved in fighting over these sorts of things in litigation is to simply make sure any electronic communication with your attorney is done from home using a personal computer and e-mail account.

Yesterday the California Supreme Court heard arguments in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc.

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...

Yesterday the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., ruling that employers may reimburse employee expenses in the form of "additional wages" payable in a "lump sum" instead of reimbursing each separate expense for the exact amount incurred.

This case deals with a scenario common to sales employees where the employer simply gives the employee a set automobile "allowance" or a "per diem" payment that is meant to cover the employee's mileage expenses, etc. instead of having the employee submit expense reimbursement requests.

The Plaintiff in Gattuso argued that this was not an allowable method of expense reimbursement and that the payments must be made separately from wages.

Expenses Still Must Be Reimbursed Fully

Under Labor Code section 2802, employers must reimburse all expenses the employee pays for out-of-pocket in carrying out their duties. This includes mileage driven in their own automobile and gas put into a company car. Labor Code section 2804 further states that an employer and employee cannot agree to waive this reimbursement requirement.

The Court held that the employer still must make clear what portion of the salary or commission payments is meant to reimburse the employee for expenses versus compensation for the work performed.

This is because if the amount meant to cover expenses is not enough to cover the actual amount of expenses incurred during a pay period, the employer must pay the employee additional money to make up the difference.

The "Lump Sum" Method is Not for the Lazy Employer

I think that many employers use the "lump sum" method out of laziness, because they (understandably) do not want to process expense reports and write separate checks in varying amounts each month. The employer in Gattuso actually took this a step further and simply increased the employees' commissions by a certain amount to cover expenses.

"Lazy" employers probably should not use this method, however, because regardless of what they pay the employee to cover expenses each month, the employer still has a duty under section 2802 to fully reimburse employees for expenses.

So, the employer has to make sure they pay the employee any additional money owed above and beyond the "lump sum" payment, but they presumably are no longer requiring employees to submit expense reports, so they are unable to determine if they have paid enough.

These employers will have the logistical nightmare of trying to "guess" whether they are complying with the law. The only way to be sure is to have employees submit expense reports each month, compare the totals to the "lump sum" payments and pay out additional monies for any extra reimbursements owed.

By this point, the whole point of using the "lump sum" method has been defeated. For an employer who uses the "lump sum" method and is meticulous in complying with the law, the only difference is that most months employees get a windfall in the form of extra wages if they incur expenses totaling less than their "lump sum".

Gattuso Does Not Change Much

Gattuso does not really change anything under California law, except in clarifying that this "lump sum" payment method is indeed legal.

All California employers (and out-of-state employers with California employees) must still fully reimburse all employees for any and all expenses incurred on the employer's behalf.

Some Income Tax Implications are Unknown

If your employer does use this method to reimburse you for expenses incurred, it might be a good idea to point this out to your accountant or tax attorney because the difference between "wages" and "expense reimbursement" affects California withholding rights and obligations, as well as income tax liability.

As explained in various posts on this blog, California employees are presumed to deserve overtime pay for any hours worked over 40 in one week or 8 in one day, even if they are paid a salary, unless the employer can prove that an exemption to that rule applies.

The "computer software professionals" exemption is rarely used successfully by employers in overtime cases and such employees are usually non-exempt employees.

One of the reasons that this exemption is so rare is that the employee must make at least $49.77 per hour (adjusted for inflation each year), which based on a 40-hour week translates to $103,521.60 per year.

California just made the unprecedented decision to dramatically lower this threshold to $36 per hour, or $74,880 per year based on a 40-hour week, effective January 1, 2008.

This exemption will still be difficult for employers to satisfy, because most of these employees do not work a 40-hour week, so the $36 per hour threshold will still be unsatisfied if the employee is not paid a substantial amount of money.

For example, if an employee is paid a salary of $90,000 per year, but works 50 hours per week, the employee is essentially only being paid $34.62 per hour, so the exemption would not apply. In this example, the employee would have a substantial (and relatively simple) case for unpaid overtime.

As a basic rule of thumb, if you are a computer professional in California being paid a salary and working overtime, your employer likely owes you some unpaid overtime and you should contact an attorney as soon as possible to learn what rights you have.

This is our final installment in a series dealing with employee rights laws that California's legislature passed in 2007, but which Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed last month before they could take effect.

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.

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?

As the end of the year approached, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed several employee protections the California legislature passed in 2007. While he felt it was important to give full protections to military spouses whose husbands or wives were on leave, he deemed other employees to be less deserving of similar rights.

This is the first in a series of posts on several important employee rights bills that the legislature passed this year, but the Governor vetoed last month.

AB 1707

Assembly Bill 1707 created a $750 penalty provision against employers who refuse to provide employees access to their personnel files.

Employees in California have a statutory right to view almost anything in their personnel files. However, there has never been any penalty in place for employers who refuse to comply with this law.

If an employer refuses to grant access to the employee's file, the employee could bring a lawsuit, but other than ordering the employer to open the records, the court has not real power to punish employers who willfully break this law.

This modest penalty would have provided an employer with more incentive to comply with the law, but since the bill was vetoed employees are left with no threat of any monetary penalty to use against employers who know they really have nothing to lose for refusing to follow the law.

AB 435

Assembly Bill 435 is similar to AB1707. It was a bill that proposed allowing employees to recover double damages from their employers if they do not pay their employees the minimum wage.

Like the law granting access to personnel files, California's minimum wage law allows employees to sue to recover their unpaid wages, but there is no additional penalty they can recover from their employer if they win.

Essentially, the law is currently set up so that an employee who is already making less than minimum wage to begin with must pay an attorney to sue in court and recover their wages, with nothing extra awarded for their trouble (and no further penalty to the employer for not paying).

This law was an attempt by the legislature to provide for stiff penalties against employers who prey on the employees who need the money the most (sometimes not paying their employees at all), but apparently Mr. Schwarzenegger believed no such penalties were needed under the law.

California has passed a law providing employees whose spouses are on active military duty with protected leave from work to be with their spouses when they are on leave from duty.

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!

Employers could avoid a LOT of lawsuits if they would just follow the "No Bad Apples Rule", which has its origins in a book written by Dr. Robert Sutton called "The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't". Although I agree with Dr. Sutton that "bad apples" probably is not a strong enough word, to be politically correct I will use this less offensive term.

The basic premise of this rule is that employers refuse to allow employees who are disruptive, excessively arrogant, rude or downright mean to work in their company. Often these employees are kept around because they are the top salesperson in the office or some other performance-based reason.

However, the book focuses on the reality that no matter how productive these employees are, it is usually not worth keeping them around when you consider the havoc they wreak on workplace morale, the performance of others and the potential for lawsuits against the employer later on.

It is very common when talking to prospective clients that they actually loved their job before Mr. X was hired and turned the office into a combat zone. Regarding their manager's reaction to these problem employees, these clients often tell me things like "my supervisor ignored it" or "my manager was oblivious to it".

An employer is especially in trouble if the a--hole is white (or male, young, straight, etc.) and those complaining are black (or female, older, gay, etc.). In California, this is usually enough for the employee to bring a "hostile work environment" harassment claim and often prevail.

If employers would simply communicate more with their employees, be cognizant of sharp drops in morale, and do something about these problem employees when they are discovered, they could avoid an awful lot of lawsuits by jaded and disgruntled employees.

Special thanks to the Workplace Fairness blog, where I first discovered this book.

Additionally, Diane Levine mentions a study at her Online Guide to Mediation blog, that comes to a similar conclusion about "bad apples".

Sometimes it is easy to forget that discrimination against women, minorities and (of course) minority women still occurs in this country.

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.

Q: My employer pays me at one rate of pay for my regular work, but then pays me minimum wage for travel and attending seminars after-hours. How is my overtime supposed to be calculated?

--Bad at Math (CA)

A: Calculating overtime for an hourly employee who is paid at two separate hourly rates is a fairly complicated analysis and does not come up very often, but hopefully the explanation below makes some sense to you. If you need more help understanding the calculation, please feel free to contact me.

Introduction to the "Regular Rate" (versus the "Base Rate")

An employee's "regular rate" of pay is a legal term for the number used to calculate their "overtime rate" of pay, which is either 1.5 or 2 times the "regular rate," depending on how many hours are worked.

What I call the "base rate" of compensation is the typical rate at which you are paid in a regular day, week or hour of work, whether at an hourly rate, salary, commissions, etc.

Some people get confused by the term "regular rate" and mistake it as a synonym for what I call the "base rate". However, the "regular rate" is only used to calculate the "overtime rate". It really has no other purpose and often bears little resemblance to an employee's actual "regular wages".

In fact, the "regular rate" can often differ greatly from the "base rate," as explained below.

Calculation of "Regular Rate" for Hourly Employees

For hourly employees, the "regular rate" is determined by taking all of the money an employee is paid in any given week and dividing it by the total number of hours worked that week.

The Usual Situation

Hourly employees are usually paid just a straight hourly rate for their "base rate". So, for most hourly employees their "regular rate" is the same as their "base rate".

• Employee is Paid $15 per hour ("base rate")
• ($15/hr X 45 hours=$675)/45=$15 ("regular rate")

For purposes of this example, we will assume that he employee worked 40 regular hours and 5 overtime hours. To calculate overtime pay, the "regular rate" is multiplied by 1.5 to determine the "overtime rate", which in this example would be $22.50.

The most common way to calculate overtime in this situation is to multiply the "base rate" by 40 hours to get the employee's "regular pay" ($600), multiply the "overtime rate" by 5 to get their "overtime pay" ($112.50), and add the two figures together ($712.50) to calculate the wages owed.

However, this is not technically correct, because what the law says is that the employee is entitled to additional "premium pay" for overtime hours worked. So really the way this should be calculated is to multiply the number of hours worked by the "base rate" ($675) and then multiply the 5 overtime hours by the difference between the "overtime rate" and the "regular rate" ($7.50) to determine the additional "premium pay" owed and add the two figures together ($712.50) to calculate the wages owed.

The reason you must subtract the "base rate" from the "overtime rate" is because the employee has already been compensated partially for the overtime hours worked at the "base rate".

While both methods seem to work in this example, the reason the longer version is correct becomes apparent from the next example.

The Complicated Situation

When an employee is paid at two different hourly rates for different tasks, the employer must calculate the "regular rate" using a "weighted average" of the different hourly rates.

Using the same example above, assume that the employee is paid $10 per hour for time spent doing janitorial duties at a retail sales job and that the first 40 hours of the week were spent doing sales work at $15 per hour and the last 5 were spent doing janitorial work.

First, calculate the "regular rate," which is done the same as above--by adding all of the money earned by that employee for the week and dividing it by the number of hours worked:

• [($10/hr X 5 hours=$50)+($15/hr X 40 hours=$600)]/45=$14.44

Second, calculate the "overtime rate" by multiplying the "regular rate" by 1.5 ($21.67). Finally, calculate the "overtime pay" by taking the difference between the "overtime rate" ($21.67) and the "base rate" for the overtime hours ($10.00) and multiply that number ($11.67) by the number of overtime hours worked (5) to determine the additional "premium pay" owed ($58.35).

The total pay for this week should be $708.35.

Again, I know this analysis is complicated, but if you have any questions about whether you are being paid overtime correctly, you should contact an employment law attorney.

One of the strongest job protections for employees in the United States is for those who take a leave of absence to serve in the armed forces. I have seen a dramatic increase in these claims in just the past year and I recently filed a federal lawsuit for a client in San Francisco for some egregious violations.

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.

Yesterday, it was reported that Wal-Mart had reached a settlement with the Department of Labor to settle unpaid overtime claims by its employees.

The odd thing about this settlement is that Wal-Mart turned itself in to the Department of Labor and negotiated a quick settlement with the government and the employees had no say in what they settled for.

Apparently, the settlement included absolutely NO penalties, NO interest and it is unclear whether the employees are even getting anywhere near what they are actually owed in unpaid overtime.

A case where an employer admits they broke the law and turns themselves in for it would usually be an easy case to win. Also, federal law allows courts to double the amount of overtime wages due as a penalty for not paying those wages in the first place. It looks as though these employees are actually receiving less than half of what they are owed.

The California labor commissioner is now apparently negotiating with Wal-Mart to settle overtime claims against the company under California law. It would be in these employees' best interest to seek out their own personal legal counsel so that they get every penny they deserve.

Thank you to Wake Up Wal-Mart for the additional information.

Q: I quit my last job because my boss would not stop asking me out on dates. Now I am having a really tough time finding a new position. Every time I go through an interview they seem to love me, but then it falls through once they start checking my references. I think my former boss is bad-mouthing me when these employers call, even though there is nothing negative in my work history. What can I do about this?

--Can't Find a Job (CA)

A: Most employers these days are aware of the potential liability they face for saying too much about former employees. Almost all larger companies will simply say how long the former employee worked for them, their position and rate of pay. In response to any detailed questions, they simply say it is their "policy" not to reveal anything more.

One big problem is when potential employers call supervisors or co-workers for references instead of the human resources department. Most companies have strict prohibitions on who is allowed to give out references, but this is not always the case.

The Law in California

Many Californians believe that it is illegal for employers to say anything negative about them after they leave. However, this is just not the case. It is completely legal for an employer to say anything they want about a former employee as long as it is true.

This might seem like an easy test, but when you consider some of the things that employers say, such as "she wasn't a very hard worker" or "she is lazy," whether or not something is "true" becomes hard to judge.

This is why many companies just prohibit any comments about former employees' performance altogether. California employees who sue because former employers misrepresented something to potential employers can recover triple damages.

Possible Solutions

The problem you have is you do not know if your employer is truly saying negative things about you, what they are saying, or who is saying it. These are all facts you need to know before you decide what to do.

One easy way to find out this information is to have a friend or relative call your old employer and pretend to be a potential new employer. Your friend can ask whether they recommend you, whether you are eligible for rehire, if there is anything they should know about you, etc.

Another method is to use a reference-checking service. These services employ court reporters who call former employers posing as a potential new employer and type out every word that is said. After the call is concluded, they sign an affidavit testifying to the transcript's authenticity and send you a full report.

If you strongly suspect that your former employer is bad-mouthing you, this might be the way to go because the affidavit can be used to sue your former boss or the company for defamation or misrepresentation.

The best reference check service I have used is Documented Reference Check (DRC), which you can visit at www.BadReferences.com. There is a fee for their services, but it is always good to know whether a former employer is bad-mouthing you behind your back.

Although this series on commissioned salespeople and overtime might not be the most exciting employment law topic, for those with large unpaid claims, it probably is the most exciting. I leave this topic with the following points.

Minimum Wage Test

The final test that must be met before commissioned salespeople can be considered "exempt" from overtime wages is the "minimum wage" test.

Each week a commissioned salesperson must make at least 1.5 times the California minimum wage. Otherwise, they are automatically considered non-exempt for that week.

For employees with low "base" pay or those who are paid 100% commission, this puts the unwelcome burden on employers of paying overtime to those salespeople who are not very good at their job and do not make any commissions for the week.

However, many employers simply pay a "base" rate of 1.5 times the minimum wage to stop this from happening in the first place.

Must Actually "Sell"

Some employees have "sales support" positions. They are the ones who actually install the product or provide technical support for the salespeople but do not actually "sell" to the customer.

This probably should just go without saying, but in order to be classified as "exempt" for being a commissioned salesperson, you actually have to be "selling" something.

Common Misclassifications in California

Some of the professions that are most often misclassified include the following groups:

• Financial Planners
• Stock Brokers
• Mortgage Brokers
• Other Financial Industry Salespeople
• Those who provide "sales support" but do not actually sell, and
• Commercial Equipment Salespeople

If you belong to one of these professions, you very well may have a large unpaid wages claim to pursue!

Even if you meet the criteria to be classified as "exempt" from overtime pay as a commissioned salesperson, the business your employer is engaged in can also automatically qualify you for overtime, regardless of how you are paid.

Commissioned salespeople can only be "exempt" if their employer is a "retail or service establishment". Whether your employer qualifies is very complicated and there might not even be a straight answer.

Basically it comes down to the question of whether what your employer sells is often sold at "retail". This is opposed to "wholesale," although that does not shed much light on things, either.

The basic test (to which there are many exceptions) is whether the type of product your employer is selling is something sold to the general public, as opposed to other businesses.

One of the best examples from my own experience is a client who sold those self-checkout kiosks you see in grocery stores, Home Depot, etc. This was all his company sold, so this was pretty much a "slam dunk" that his employer was not a "retail or service establishment" and he had overtime claims exceeding $100,000 per year.

An example from the other extreme would be electronics salespeople in stores like Best Buy or Circuit City. These salespeople really only sell to the general public, so their employer clearly is a "retail or service establishment".

In order for an employee to qualify as "exempt" from overtime pay as a commissioned salesperson, the main test that must be met is the employee MUST make more than 50% of their wages in the form of "commissions". This test is not as straightforward as it might sound at first.

What are "commissions"?

Many employees receive what their employers call "commissions" as part of their wages each pay period, but few give thought to what this term actually means.

Under California law the term has a specific definition. It means wages an employee receives that are calculated as a percentage of the purchase price of the good or service sold.

So, for example, if you receive a set amount of money for each item you sell, no matter how much you sell it for, these wages are NOT commissions under California law. These types of wages are considered along the lines of a "bonus" in California, not "commissions".

So, any wages an employer calls "commissions" that do not meet this test cannot be counted towards the 50% commissions threshold.

If a salesperson is paid a base amount plus these types of "commissions," that employee is almost certainly entitled to overtime pay.

How is the 50% measured?

It is not totally clear under California law what time period is used to measure whether an employee makes more than 50% in commission pay.

Arguably the measurement is week-to-week, so an employee may be considered "exempt" one week and "non-exempt" the next.

The representative period likely depends on the sales-cycle of a particular industry, but if your commissions dramatically go up and down from one pay period to the next, there is at least a strong argument that you are owed at least some unpaid overtime.

Hopefully you are starting to see how complicated this exemption can get and how it can be very difficult for employers to squeeze their salespeople into its parameters.

This is the first in a series of posts dealing specifically with the issue of commissioned salespeople and unpaid overtime. This is an area most employees, many employers, and even a large percentage of California attorneys do not understand correctly.

Top salespeople often make a very comfortable living and never even think about whether they are legally entitled to overtime pay.

Usually only salespeople who are wrongfully terminated or seek legal advice for other reasons ever recover these amounts because a lawyer tells them about their claims.

If you are a salesperson, these posts are required reading, because you might be getting cheated out of some very substantial amounts of wages, regardless of how much money you are making in regular wages.

"Commissioned" DOES NOT Equal "Exempt"

Many salespeople assume because they are "commissioned" they are not entitled to overtime. However, whether or not a salesperson is truly "commissioned" is determined by a complicated legal analysis.

Further, even if a salesperson is "commissioned," this is only one of many requirements that must be met before an employer can treat an employee as truly "exempt" from overtime pay.

Hopefully this series will help some of these employees realize their current (or former) employers owe them some substantial wages that might be worth pursuing.

"I make a good living--why should I care about getting overtime, too?"

For those who have not been following this blog, it would be helpful for you to review my earlier posts on common mistakes employers make in calculating the rate of overtime pay and the number of overtime hours worked to see just how much money might be owed.

It is not unheard of for salespeople to be owed hundreds of thousands of dollars if they work enough overtime, make enough money in regular wages and have worked for their employer long enough.

These employees are getting cheated out of their wages either because their employers are ignorant of the law or the employers are happily pocketing these extra wages because the employees do not know their rights. Either way, the employees are legally entitled to these earned, but unpaid wages.

The next few posts will deal with determining whether or not a salesperson is entitled to unpaid overtime wages. In my experience, many of them are.

Employers and employees are often confused about how many hours an employee must work before overtime must be paid. California law is more complicated than most states on this point, but it is also much more generous to employees than most.

Employers must pay all non-exempt employees overtime at the rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked:

1) Over 40 in one week,

2) Over 8 in one day, and

3) For hours 1-8 on the seventh-consecutive workday in a workweek.

Employers also must pay employees double time for all hours worked:

1) Over 12 in one day, and

2) Over 8 on the seventh-consecutive workday.

The math can get a little tricky here, which is where many employers violate the law and over time these "little" mistakes, such as ignoring double-time pay for certain hours, can add up to "big" liability.

There is an exception to this rule for "make up time". If an employee wishes to miss part of one day of work and then "make it up" the next day or later in the week, these hours do not count as overtime even if they are more than 8 in one day.

However, permission to "make up" time must be requested in writing before-the-fact and an employer cannot coerce an employee into making such a request.

 

Employers, either through ignorance or intentionally, often make big mistakes in calculating overtime rates of pay for their employees and these often turn into big claims by the employees for unpaid wages later on.

Overtime Rate NOT Just 1.5 Times Hourly Rate

To calculate an employee's "overtime rate" of pay, you first have to calculate their "regular rate" of pay, which is the number multiplied by 1.5 to get an "overtime rate".

Most employers do not include commissions, bonuses and other additional money an employer earns in calculating the employee's "regular rate" for overtime purposes.  Employers usually just take the employee's hourly rate, multiply it by 1.5 and use that as the overtime rate.

However, under California law the "regular rate" is generally calculated by taking all of an employee's regular wages (hourly pay, salary, bonuses, commissions, etc.) earned in a given week and dividing it by 40.  The overtime rate is then multiplied by 1.5.

This can make a very big difference in how much money an employee gets paid in overtime.

An Example

Assume a salesperson makes $24 per hour as a "base", makes an additional $1,000 per week in commissions and works 20 hours of overtime each week.

This person's employer most likely calculates his overtime pay by taking his hourly rate ($24) and multiplying it by 1.5 to arrive at an overtime rate of $36 per hour.  This equals $720 of overtime pay each week, or $37,440 per year.

What the employer should do is take the regular hourly pay for the week ($24 X 40 hours=$960) and add it to the commissions earned ($1,000) to arrive at the total weekly pay ($1,960).  This number should then be divided by 40 to arrive at a "regular rate" of $49.  This is multiplied by 1.5 for an overtime rate of $73.50 per hour.  This means the employee should be receiving $1,470 of overtime pay each week, or $76,440 per year.

So, each year this employer is getting away with paying the employee $39,000 less than he is legally entitled to!  Employees in California are entitled to recover up to four years of unpaid wages, which in this case equals roughly  $156,000.

Assuming there are ten such salespeople working for a company, this quickly adds up to over $1.5 Million over four years.

Q: I took a one-month FMLA medical leave for surgery, but my employer laid me off two weeks into the leave. I have always heard that an employer cannot terminate an employee who is on a medical leave. Is this true?

--Unemployed (CA)

A: It is a common misconception among employees that employers cannot terminate them if they are on a medical leave. While in practice most employer are reluctant to terminate an employee who is out on a medical leave, the law does not explicitly prohibit terminating such an employee.

The Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") and its California counterpart, the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"), protect employees from being terminated because they take a medical leave. It does not totally prohibit termination of an employee while they are on a medical leave. The difference is subtle, but it is there.

For example, assume a salesperson is out on FMLA leave and his company lays off their entire 100-person sales force. The employer is not required to keep the salesperson on medical leave on their payroll and terminating the salesperson would not be an outright violation of the FMLA.

However, if the salesperson is the only one out of the 100 salespeople to be laid off and there is no other clear reason for the termination, it begins to look more like the employee is being laid off because they are on an FMLA leave.

So, in response to your question, what really matters is why you were terminated while out on a medical leave, not just that you happened to be out on a medical leave when you were terminated.

Q: I moved to California from Wisconsin six months ago to take a job with a company here. I quit a good job back home, my wife sacrificed a job she loved, and our kids had to leave all of their friends behind, and we moved our family to California. I was stunned last week when I was suddenly laid off by my new company.

I have heard from some other employees that I was really only hired to do one important project in my area of expertise (which we had just finished two weeks ago) and that they believe it was the company's intention to fire me all along after it was completed. Can I sue them?

--Stranded in California

A: I am truly sorry about what has happened to you and your family, but luckily you moved to a state with specific laws against this sort of thing.

Labor Code § 970

California Labor Code § 970 prohibits employers from "fraudulently inducing" employees to relocate to accept new employment. In this situation, "fraudulent inducement" essentially means lying to someone to get them to move and accept employment with your company.

If you can prove that you were lead to believe you were not being hired for one specific assignment, that your employer knew you believed that and that your employer's intention was to terminate you after that assignment was completed, then you will be able to sue your former employer.

Proof Can Be Easy in These Cases

In your situation, however, most judges and juries would easily believe you did not uproot your family and move to California just to take a six month temporary position. They also would be unlikely to believe the employer thought you agreed to that as the deal. The only thing left to prove is what the company thought would happen after the project was finished. This can be proven through e-mails, testimony and various other ways.

Damages are Tripled

Under Labor Code § 970, you can recover virtually any damages you can attribute to moving to take the new job and then being laid off. Your lost wages during unemployment, the cost of moving to California, the cost of moving back to Wisconsin if you move back, any costs you or your wife incur to get a new job, attorney's fees, and countless other damages are recoverable under this statute.

The best part of Labor Code § 970, though, is that you are entitled to recover "treble" damages. What this means is that whatever damages you are awarded get tripled as a penalty against the company. So, if you can recover $100,000 of damages for what the company did, you would be awarded $300,000 total.

The California legislature realized what an extreme hardship situations like these place on employees and their families. Often they find themselves having moved for a job that suddenly vanishes and they are left stranded.

Jay Shepherd over at the Gruntled Employees blawg has an interesting post from the employer's attorney perspective about why he believes mandatory arbitration clauses are a "stupid employer trick" and actually "not good for employers".

I never understood why many employers force their employees to sign mandatory arbitration clauses, so this is refreshing to hear from a management-side employment law attorney. I have been saying this for years with little agreement from the other side of the aisle.

The points Jay makes are especially true in California, where employers have to pay for any costs of the arbitration that exceed what an employee would have to pay in a regular court (essentially just a minimal filing fee). This ends up being much more expensive for employers than going to court, because arbitrators are paid hefty rates by the hour.

In fact, forcing an employer into arbitration under their own agreement is a good way for an employee to leverage a settlement, because suddenly the employer is expending huge amounts of money just to pay for the process they forced the employee to agree to in the first place.